TV 

u/\ 

M-2S 
0*70?. 


B 


X 
GlCi 


SPEECH 


OF 


HON.  LEWIS  PASS,  OF  MICHIGAN, 


OUR  RELATIONS  WITH  GREAT  BRITAIN 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  JANUARY  28,  1856. 


Mr.CASSsaid:  Mr.  PRESIDENT:  No  man,  who 
has  read  the  President's  annual  message,  can  fail 
to  see  that  our  relations  with  England  a^e  in  a 
critical  condition.  In  that  able  and  statesmanlike 
paper,  the  Chief  Magistrate  has  spread  before 
the  country  and  the  world,  a  statement  of  our 
affairs  with  various  nations,  and  'especially  of 
our  affairs  with  England.  The  whole  exposition 
is  plain  and  comprehensive;  but  it  is  with  the 
latter,  only,  that  I  have  any  concern  upon  the 
present  occasion.  And  there  I  find  the  facts  true 
and  clearly  stated,  the  principles  urged  with  force 
and  justice;  and,  ^hilc  the  indefensible  preten 
sions  of  England  are  exposed  with  a  power  of 
truth  and  reason,  which  will  carry  conviction  to 
every  unprejudiced  mind,  there  is  a  tone  of  firm 
ness  pervading  the  document,  and  within  the 
limits  of  a  proper  national  comity,  which  be 
comes  the  constitutional  representative  of  this 
great  Republic  in  its  intercourse  with  the  other 
Powers  of  the  earth. 

And  I  have  read,  with  much  gratification,  the 
dispatches  which  have  issued  from  the  State 
Department  in  relation  to  this  controversy;  and  I 
find  them  marked  with  signal  ability.  It  must 
be  a  satisfaction  to  the  country  to  see,  that  its' 
important  interests  are  committed  to  such  able 
management;  and  I  will  add,  as  a  mere  act  of 
justice,  that  the  papers,  which  have  found  their 
way  to  the  public  from  that  Department,  during 
the  administration  of  the  present  Secretary, 'may 
favorably  compare  with  the  official  papers  of  the 
most  eminent  of  his  predecessors. 

And  I  fully  concur  in  the  encomium  pro 
nounced  the  other  day  by  the  honorable  Senator 
from  Delaware,  [Mr.  CLAYTON,]  himself  a  com 
petent  judge,  upon  the  distinguished  Minister, 
who  has  conducted  our  negotiations  at  the  Court 
of  London.  His  letters  to  Lord  Clarendon,  and 
especially  his  statements,  first  explaining  our 
cJfee,  and  next  examining  the  co.se "of  England, 
are  models  of  diplomatic  correspondence,  clear, 
cogent,  conclusive,  and  I  believe  have  been  read 


1  with  pride  and  pleasure  through  the  whole  coun 
try.  And  I  trust,  sir,  that  the  public  press  has 
already  conveyed  to  Mr.  Buchanan  evidence  of 
the  warm  appreciation  of  his  fellow-citizens.  An 
^American  Representative  'abroad  is  often  placed 
*n  positions  of  difficulty  and  responsibility,  where 
the  support  of  his  countrymen  is  not  only  his  best 
reward,  but  his  best  encouragement.  I  have 
found  myself  surrounded  with  such  circumstances ; 
and  one  of  the  proudest  days  of  my  life  was  the 
day,  when  information  reached  me,  that  upon  a 
memorable  occasion  I  had  been  weighed  in  the 
balance  by  my  fellow-citizens,  and  found  not 
wanting. 

Entertaining  the  views  I  have  expressed  of  the 
President's  message,  I  regretted  to  see,  in  a  highly 
esteemed  and  intelligent  journal  of  this  city,  which 
I  have  read  with  interest  for  almosthalfa century, 
the  National  Intelligencer,  and  for  whose  editors 
I  have  a  warm  personal  regard,  comments  upon 
the  tone  and  temper  of  portions  of  that  document  5 
which  seemed  to  me  marked  with  an  undue  scve 
rity  of  criticism.  I  do  not  propose  to  examine 
them,  and  refer  to  the  article  principally  for  the 
purpose  of  quoting  a  single  paragraph.  Before 
doing  so,  however,  I  ask  attention  to  an  expres 
sion,  which  conveys  a  forcible  image,  but  one,! 
consider  wholly  inapplicable  toourposition.  That 
expression  which  contains  much  in  little  is,  that 
"  we  are  drifting  into  difficulties."  Sir,  I  do  not 
thus  understand  the  circumstances,  with  which  we 
arc  surrounded.  In  my  opinion,  our  noble  ship 
is  upon  her  true  course,  and  our  pilot  is  doing  his 
duty.  If  difficulties  arc  before  us — and  I  believe 
they  are — we  are  neither  drifting  towards  them, 
nor  they  towards  us.  They  are  designedly  placing 
themselves  in  our  way,  and  it  would  ill  become  our 
self-respect,  or  our  honor,  to  change  our  course 
with  a  view  to  avoid  them.  The  maneuver,  even 
if  resorted  to,  would  be  but  a  temporary  escape, 
and  we  should  find,  that,  while  we  had  lost  our 
character,  we  had  not  gained  the  poor  recom 
pense  of  safety  for  dishonor. 


252 


The  Intelligencer,  speaking  of  warnings  it  had  ; 
given,  says  they  were  "  warnings  prompted  by  j 
observation  of  the  increasing  prevalence  of  a  war 
spirit  amongst  the  politicians  of  the  day,  against : 
indulging  this  martial  propensity  to  the  extent  of  • 
giving  countenance,  much  less  confidence,  to  any  | 
Administration,  or  to  any  party,  now  or  here-  i 
after,  which  may  show  a  disposition  to  make  ! 
capital  by  fomenting  national  jars  into  national 


the  population  so  in;-  ,  as  to  exert  no 

influence  upon  our  national  cburse.  Almost  no 
body  wants  war.  But  war  is  not  to  be  aroided 
by  shutting  our  eyes  to  the  signs  of  the  times, 
and  crying,  "all's  well,"  when  danger  is  upon  us. 
The  ostrich,  which  roams  the  desert,  and  hides 
its  head  in  the  sand,  fearing  it  knows  not  what, 
and  believing  that  it  cannot  be  seen,  because  it 
cannot  itself  see,  is  as  wise  as  those  politicians, 


hates,  o/  nursing  into  causes  "of  war  every  ad-  1!  who  think  to  avert  or  avoid  danger  by  affecting  to 
vcntitious  dispute  or  controversy,  great  or  smpll,  be  utterly  ignorant  of  its  existence.  The  true  way 
such  as  are  of  every-day  occurrence  in  the  family  jj  is  to  look  it  in  the  face,  and  to  be  prepared  for  it. 
of  nations,  and  from  which  the  United  States  This  is  equally  the  dictate  of  prudence  and  of 

" 


would  in  vain  hope  for  any  exemption. 


Sir,  I  am  sorry  to  see  these  remarks  in  such  a  j 
justly  influential  journal,  not  so  much  on  account  I 
of  the  language,  for  it  is  guarded,  but  on  account  j 
of  the  spirit,  which  pervades  the  article.  Should  J 
trouble  come,  that  paper  will  be  a  faithful  co- 1 

laborer  in  its  country's  cause;  but,  in  the  mean '!  the  loss  of  the  respect  of  the  world.    If,  in  addition 
time,  such  intimations  are  unfortunate,  for  they    to  our  own  experience,  we  wanted   any  other 


patriotism. 

Sir,  war  has  its  evils,  and  great,  indeed,  they 
are.  Many  of  us  know  them  by  personal  observ 
ation,  and  all  know  them  by  history  and  tradi 
tion.  But  there  arc  evils  still  greater,  and  among 
those  is  the  forfeiture  of  our  own  self-respect  and 


tend  to  cast  doubts  upon  the  motives  of  public  : 
men,  and  to  render  them  distrusted.  During  j 
many  years,  I  have  observed  that  every  one  has  j 
been" exposed  to  similar  imputations,  who  looked  | 
steadily  at  the  proceedings  of  other  nations,  and  ; 


was  prompt  to  observe  and  denounce  injurious 
or  insulting  conduct  towards  us.  It  seems  to  be 
thought,  with  some,  to  be  the  dictate  of  caution, 
if  not  of  wisdom,  that  the  public  eve  and  car 
should  be  kept  almost  closed,  lest  the  country 
should  become  too  sensitive,  and  something  worse 
might  happen,  as  though  there  could  be  anything 


proof  of  the  dire  calamities,  which  war  brings  in 
its  train ,  we  should  find  it  in  the  great  contest  now 
going  on  upon  the  shores  of  the  old  Euxinc,  tho 
early  seats  of  civilization,  where  three  of  the 
greatest  nations  of  the  world  arc  engaged  in  tho 


deadliest  conflict,  recorded  in  the'long  annals  of 
human  warfare,  from  the  first  battle  described  in 
sacred  history,  when  the  four  Kings  went  out 
against  the  five  Kings  in  the  vale  of  Siddim,  down 
to  our  day.  How  this  mighty  struggle  is  to  end, 
1 1  or  when,  or  with  what  consequences  to  the  com- 
^  II  batants  themselves,  or  to  the  old  hemisphere,  it 

worse  than  national  disgrace.     I  do  not  recollcc^l  would  be  presumptuous  even  to  endeavor  to  pre- 

a  single  controversy  we  have  had  with  a  foreign     diet. 

Power,  since  I  have  been  on  the  stage  of  action, 

when  these  ungracious  charges  have  not  come  to 

weaken,  if  not  to  deaden, .the   inspirations   of 

patriotism.     Certainly,  sir,  to  observe  vigilantly 


the  conduct  of  foreign  nations  towards  our  coun 
try,  and  to  cxposo  their  injustice,  is  not  to  desire 
or  to  demand  a  war  upon  all  occasions.  The  idea 


A  singular  commentary  upon  the  little  danger 
of  war,  "  while  statesmen  keep  their  senses,"  to 
use  an  expression  of  the  Intelligencer,  is  furnished 
by  an  event,  that  recently  occurred  in  England. 
War,  indeed,  did  not  result  from  it,  but  it  is  ob 
vious  that,  in  the  public  opinion  there,  a  critical 
state  of  things  exists,  which  requires  but  a  slight 


rly  unfounded/  Grave  events,  the  gravest,  !  incident  to  produce  hostilities;  and  the  cireurn- 
only  can  justify  hostilities,  but  far  short  of  such  ;  stance  to  which  I  allude  is  any  thing  but  honorable 
x:v,  nts  may  there  be  others  calling  for  examina-  |  to  the  boasted  intelligence  of  this  middle  of  the 
tion  and  exposure.  It  seems  to  me,  sir,  that  the  nineteenth  century.  It  is  but  a  few  days  since 
prop-risky  to  doubt  the  justice  of  our  own  cause  |  the  people  of  Engknd,  with  wonderful  unanimity, 
is  almost  an  American  idiosyncrasy,  for  I  do  not  believed  that  a  war  with  the  United  States  was 
believe  it  is  equally  prevalent  among  any  other  'J  imminent— not  imminent  merely,  but  that  it  had 
people  on  the  face  of  the  globe.  I  have  more  than  !!  actually  broken  out.  They  heard,  as  they  sup- 
once  before  been,  and  shall  now  again  be,  exposed  posed,  the  guns  of  the  hostile  parties,  while,  m 
to  similar  obloquy.  But  neither  its  advent  nor  tUc.t,  it  was  the  peals  of  their  own  "Thunderer, 
"-ension  has  deterred  me,  at  mu«-.h  <  arUer  now  facetiously  called  "  Blunderer,  \vuen  it 


expression  01  an  earnest  iiupu  umt  u«=  i*.»»i,»»v«^  j  .«».*>,-_ 

name  and  the  American  fame  will  be  maintained  jj  Olympu... 

by  the  American  people  with  the  brightness  of  wfiUi  the  English  ruler  of  the  clouds  has  to  limit 

true  glory,  undiminished  by  the  commission  of  a  :  his  powers  of  alarm  to  his  own  nation      Bi 

gingle   deed,  or  th'e  omission  of  a  single   deed,  sent  his  voice  to  every  nook  of  Great    ,n  an, 

which  national   duty  may  forbid  or  require.     1  from  Johnny  Groat  s  house  to  the  I 

have  the  consolation,  however,  of  Ivliovn^g  that,  currying  troul*  e  to  every  loyal  heait      A  fleet 


of  llle-G«v_t  toro  the  pubhtsand 


engage  ihe  country  in  war.     There   is  no  such 
desire,  dr,  if  there  be,  it  is  confined  to  a  portion  of  jj  each 


its  advocates. 


•v, 
. 
Oiie  "was,  that  the 


3 


naval  expedition  was  destined  to  intercept  a  new 
armada,  more  terrible  t^ian  its  Spanish  predeces 
sor,  which  had  left,  or  was  about  to  leave,  our  j 
shores,  in  order  to  wrest  Ireland  from   English  j 
domination;  and  the  other,  that  this  display  of  a 


characterize   this   pretension.      It   characterizes 
itself. 

That  high  officers  of  the  English  Government, 
both  in  the  United  States  and  upon  their  borders, 
were  engaged  in  superintending" and  directing  this 


nation's  power  was  for  the  purpose  of  avenging  |l  business,  is  not  denied  either  by  them  or  by  the 
the  insult  cast  upon  the  realm  of  Gtuecn  Victoria,  j  I  home  authorities.  It  was  an  unfortunate  moment 
by  our  Attorney  General,  in  a  communication  to  ;  to  make  this  experiment  upon  our  forbearance, 
the  District  Attorney  of  New  York,  in  which  that  I  A  great  war  was  going  on,  and  the  nations  of  the 
high  functionary  had,  to  the  great  offense  of  Eng-  II  earth  were  watching  with  anxiety  every  incident 
lish  delicacy,  stated  a  plain  case  in  plain  language,  j  connected  with  it.  We  could  not  submit  to  the 
And  this  national  burst  of  indignation  is  another  !  violation  of  our  neutrality  laws,  without  the  nmst 
illustration  of  the  truth  of  the  poetic  exclama-  !i  serious  imputations  upon  our  honor  and  good 

j!  faith.    When  this  interference  with  them  became 
1 1  known — and  known,  too ,  by  judicial  investigation 


tion — 

"  What  great  effects  from  little  causes  spring !" 
I  leave  to  the  future  historian  to  pass  judgment 
upon  the  disputed  point. 

It  is  difficult,  sir,  to  believe  that  any  extent  of 
national  credulity  could  suffice  to  enable  a  people 
to  swallow  such  humbuggei'y  as  this;  it  deserves 
no  better  name.  And  yet  the  humiliating  fact 
is  true,  beyond  the  reach  of  doubt.  The  whole 
English  press  confirms  it.  I  have  myself  seen  a 
letter  from  a  most  distinguished  English  gentle 
man,  who  says,  frankly,  that  he  was  one  of  the 
"dupes"- — this  is  the  word  he  iises,  upon  that 
occasion — the  dupe  of  an  arrogant,  unprincipled 
journal,  which  has  acquired  and  exercises  an 
influence  over  the  English  public  mind,  equally 
strange  and  humiliating.  Unfortunate  is  it  for 
any  people,  where  the  journals  of  the  day  guide, 
instead  of  indicating,  tne  national  opinion,  and, 
especially,  where  one  of  them  reigns  supreme, 
and  constitutes  itself  a  new  estate  of  the  realm,  j 

The  President,  in  his  message,  refers  to  another  i 
incident,  which  lias  come  to  complicate  our  diffi-  j 
culties  with  England,  and  that  is,  the  effort  to  pro-  ! 
cure  recruits  in  the  United  States  for  the  British  j 
army,  and  the  developments  which  have  attended  i 
it.  As  the  President  well  remarks,  our  traditional  j 
policy  has  been  to  avoid  all  connection  v/ith  Eu- 1 
ropean  wars,  and  to  prevent  cither  party  from  ; 
receiving  aid  from  this  country.  For  this  pur- 1 
pose,  laws  have  been  passed,  which  form  a  per- ' 
manent  portion  of  our  system  of  national  inter-  i 
communication.  Those  laws  have  been  violated  ! 
by  persons,  acting  in  the  name  of  the  British  Gov 
ernment.  The  existence  of  the  offense  has  been 


: — there  were  two  courses  for  the  Government  to 
pursue  in  vindication  of  the  honor  of  the  country. 
One  was,  to  dismiss  the  British  Minister,  a  prin 
cipal  agent  in  these  obnoxious  affairs;  and  the 
other,  to  lay  the  case  before  the  British  Govern 
ment,  and  to  demand  his  recall.  For  myself,  sir, 
I  think  the  former  should  have  been  instantly 
adopted.  I  think  the  nature  and  the  publicity  of 
the  transactions,  and,  especially,  looking  to  the 
time  and  the  condition  of  the  world,  and  recalling 
the  thousand-and-one  charges  made  against  us  by 
the  English  press,  and  people,  and  Cabinet,  ot 
filibustering,  and  of  permissive  if  not  of  author 
ized,  armaments  in  the  United  States,  in  violation 
of  our  solemn  duties— I  think  this  act  of  vigorous 
policy  was  demanded  by  the  highest  considera 
tions,  and  I  also  think  it  would  have  redounded 
to  our  credit  through  the  world.  At  the  same 
time,  sir,  I  do  not  conceal  from  myself,  that  there 
were  very  grave  considerations  in  favor  of  adopt 
ing  the  second  course:  that  is,  giving  to  the  British 
Government  the  opportunity  of  doing  justice  to 
the  occasion  and  to  us  by  its  own  act.  I  trust  a 
demand  has  been  made,  and  that  it  will  be  listened 
to;  and,  if  not  listened  to,  that  we  shall  do  for 
ourselves  what,  in  that  event,  will  be  most  ungra 
ciously  refused,  and  ought  to  have  been  done  for 
us  elsewhere.  The  British  Government,  had  it 
been  actuated  by  a  proper  spirit  of  friendly  inter 
course,  would  have  recalled  its  Minister  as  soon 
as  it  ascertained  the  awkward  position  in  which 
he  had  placed  himself.  It  owed  a  prompt  disa 
vowal  not  less  to  itself  than  to  us. 


one  or  the  other;  and,  least  of  all,  has  the  British     th 


he  esteem  and  regard  of  all,  who  arc  acquainted 

Government  the  right  to  say,  your  laws  are  to  be  ;]  with  him.  Upon  such  a  subject  I  shall  take- 
construed  so  and  so,  and  we  have  not  interfered  '!  counsel  from  my  own  feelings  only,  and  not 
with  them,  agreeably  to  our  construction.  Our  '  from  a  lesson  which  I  find  in  British  parliament- 
own  judicial  tribunals  constitute  the  department  \[  ary  history,  and  which  was  written  their,  I 
appointed  to  interpret  our  own  laws.  The  act  suppose,  for  my  special  benefit. 
of  engaging  men  within  the  United  States  to  leave  !  When  I  had  the  honor  to  represent  my  coun- 
our  territory,  with  a  view  to  enlist  into  the.  Brit-  ij  try  abroad,  my  official  conduct  became  the  sub- 
ish  army,  when  within  the  British  dominions,  i!  jcct  of  animadversion  —  of  censure,  rather  —  in  the 
is  not  denied;  but  we  learn,  from  the  President's  ,-  British  House  of  Peers.  I  had,  unfortunately 
message,  that  it  has  been  urged,  in  defense  of  the  !  for  the  good  opinion  of  the  English  public,  done 
act,  that  <f  stringent  instructions"  were  given  so  >  what  I  could  to  counteract  a  scheme  of  their 
to  conduct  the  affair,  as  not  to  violate  our  laws,  j!  Government,  which,  if  successful,  would  have 
Well  may  the  President  express  his  surprise  at  :  given  to  them  the  maritime  supremacy  of  the 
such  an  excuse  as  this!  Well  may  he  ask,  how  j  world.  Upon  thatoccasion,  1  was  assailed  by  one 
could  the  British  Government,  with  our  law  i  who  had  held  the  highest  office  known  to  the 


statute  as  comprehensive  as  ours?     I  will  not  ij  has  been  remarkable  for  his  versatility,  having 


performed  many  parts;  but  while  he  has  been 
able  in  all,  he  has  particularly  excelled  in  vituper 
ation.  In  that  high  assemblage,  Lord  Brougham 
said,  speaking  of  me,  that  "he  had  no  more 
conception  of  questions  of  international  law,  than 
he  had  of  the  languages  spoken  in  the  moon." 
[Here,  the  record  says,  their  lordships  laughed, 

E leased,  no  doubt,  with  such  a  delicate,  sarcastic 
it;  but  I  trust,  for  the  honor  of  the  aristocracy, 
that  it  was  not  a  hearty,  Democratic  laugh,  but ; 
rather  a  gentle  relaxation  of  high-born  muscles.] 
Lord  Brougham  added,  that  "  he  (meaning  my-  | 
self)  had  no  more  capacity  for  argument,  or  rea 
son,  than  he  had  for  understanding  legal  points 
and  differences;"  "that  he  was  the  very  imper 
sonation  of  mob  hostility  to  England;"  and  "  that 
he  pandered  to  a  groveling,  groundling  set  of 

Eoliticians,"  meaning  the  people  of  the  United 
talcs. 

But  the  conduct  of  the  English  representative, 
so  far  as  it  affects  the  honor  and  interests  of  our 
country,  is  a  proper  subject  of  examination.  ,j 
Whether  he.  acted  with  or  without  authority,  is 
a  question  between  himself  and  his  Government.  " 
if  without  it,  his  course  was  indefensible,  and 
liis  punishment  should  be  exemplary.     If  with 
it,  the  greater  is  our  cause  of  complaint,  and  the 
clearer  right  have  we  to  expect  reparation. 

The  dismissal  of  a  Minister  is  no  cause  of  war. 
It  has  been  often  done.  It  is  a  measure,  AVC  have 
more  than  once  taken,  and  England  many  times. 
On  one  occasion,  she  sent  home  a  foreign  embas- 
fiador  under  guard.  Spain,  fallen  as  she  is  from 
her  former  high  estate,  quite  recently  testified  her 
dissatisfaction  with  a  British  Minister,  by  order 
ing  him  out  of  the  country.  1  repeat,  sir.  this 
act  of  national  sovereignty  is  no  just  cause  of 
war;  and  if  it  be  made  the  pretext  for  one,  why 
so  be  it— we  will  meet  it  as  we  may.  The  pros 
ecution  and  conviction  of  an  English  consular 
agent  in  a  Prussian  Court,  for  a  similar  offense, 
seems  to  have  excited  in  England  neither  sur 
prise  nor  complaint.  Both  were  reserved  for  us. 
He,  who  believes  that  England  would  have  per 
mitted  such  a  breach  of  her  laws  to  pass  unnoticed , 
under  such  circumstances,  has  read  her  history 
to  little  purpose. 

One  of  the  recent  arrivals  from  England  has 
brought  an  article  in  the  London  Morning  Herald , 
of  December  20,  1855,  which  is  not  unworthy  of 
notice  in  this  connection.     This  article  says  that, 
notwithstanding  the  "bluster"  here,  no  doubt  but 
the  foreign  enlistment  affair  was  a  "plot,"  got 
up  by  tae  "American  press"  at  "the  instance, it 
v/oufd  seem,  at  all  events,  with  the  knowledge,  of 
the  American  Secretary  of  State."    The  Herald 
asserts  it  was  proposed  to  the  Government  through  i 
Mr.  Crampton,and  not  objected  to.  It  also  states  j 
that,  at  the  trial  in  Philadelphia,  an  attempt  was  j 
made  to  implicate  Mr.  Crampton,  "  too  gross  even  | 
1'or  a  Yankee  court  of  justice."    The  Attorney  j 
General  is  charged  with  "grossncss,"^"  vulgar-  i 
ity,"  "  daring  assertion,"  "  inconclusiveness;" 
and    certain   members   of  the   Government   arc 
charged  with  laying  "  this  plot  to  implicate  our 
officials." 

Notwithstanding  "  struggles  for  notoriety,  ma 
lignancy  of  tiic  southern  and  the  inextinguishable 
hatred  of  the  Irish,"  and  though  "  the  Yankee 
may  bluster  and  rave,"  the  Herald  predicts,  that 
it  will  all  end  in  nothing. 


Now,  sir,  this  precious  diatribe  is  only  im 
portant,  as  an  indication  of  the  popular  feeling  in 
England .  Here  is  one  of  the  great  London  newspa 
pers,  printed  within  sound  of  Bow-bells,  abound 
ing  in  the  most  ridiculous  specimens  of  nonsense 
and  malignity,  it  is  possible  to  compress  within 
such  a  space,  issued,  and  read,  and  believed,  and 
enjoyed  in  the  land  of  all  the  DECENCY.  There  is 
nothing  too  gross  for  the  English  palate,  in  rela 
tion  to  our  country.  I  must  confess,  as  a  western 
man,  who  crossed  the  Ohio  when  a  lad,  and  spent 
a  large  portion  of  his  life  contending  with  the  ob 
stacles  of  a  new  country,  and  upon  the  very  verge 
of  civilization,  that  my  self-love  is  a  little  wounded 
at  the  classification,  by  the  writer  in  the  Herald,  of 
the  people  of  the  United  States;  recognizing  none 
but  Southerners,  and  Irishmen,  and  Yankees-— 
thus  ignoring  the  great  West,  with  its  six  mil 
lions  of  people,  exceeding  in  population  more 
than  half  of  the  kingdoms  of  Europe.  However, 
I  console  myself  with  the  reflection,  that  we  shall 
be  heard  of  by-and-by,  and  that  in  the  mean  time, 
this  ignorance  is  not  strange  in  a  region  where, 
it  is  said,  that  wonder  is  often  expressed  at  find 
ing,  that  an  American  is  white,  and  speaks  the 
English  language.  The  same  arrival,  that  brought 
the  Morning  Herald,  brought  also  this  most  ac 
ceptable  piece  of  information,  that  "the  report 
which  recently  prevailed,  that  the  United  States 
had  made  a  treaty  with  the  Shah  of  Persia,  guar 
antying  the  territory  on  the  Persian  Gulf,  had 
proved" erroneous."  Great  relief  this  must  have 
afforded  in  England  !  "  How  little  wisdom  "—said 
a  Swedish  statesman  to  his  son — "\Aoii'  little  wisdom 
does  it  take  to  govern  the  world!"  How  little  common 
sense,  we  may  exclaim,  is  exhibited  in  Europe 
on  the  subjct  of  American  affairs! 

We  have  had  many  difficulties  with  England, 
from  the  time  she  refused  to  sur^nder  the^ west 
ern  posts,  under  the  treaty  of  peace  of  1783,  to 
this  day;  and  I  will  not  say  all,  but  almost  all,  of 
them  resulted  from  her  conduct  towards  us,  and 
were  causes  of  complaint  on  our  part. 

Why  this  never-ceasing  injustice?  Why  seek, 
not  only  to  injure,  but  to  degrade  us,  in  the  eyes 
of  the  world?  I  have  often  sought  the  reason, 
and  can  only  find  it  in  hostility  to  our  institutions, 
and  jealousy  of  the  advance,  we  have  made  in  all 
the  elements  of  power  and  prosperity,  and  still 
more  at  the  wonderful  career  before  us.  Time 
brings  no  relaxation  of  this  unfriendly  feeling.  It* 
brings  professions  enough,  but  little  correspond- 
in"-  action.  And  the  operation  of  the  feeling  is  as 
evident  at  this  day,  as  at  any  former  period  of  our 
intercourse.  So  far  as  we  know,  the  conduct  of 
the  Ministry  has  called  forth  no  token  of  public 
disapprobation. 

Mr.  President,  we  had  a  short  discussion  the 
other  day  upon  the  subject  of  the  oft-debated 
Monroe  doctrine.  I  propose  very  briefly  to  re- 
examine  it;  and  I  shall  do  so  with  the  more  con 
fidence,  because  I  have  just  refreshed  my  recol 
lection  by  a  conversation  with  the  person,  who, 
of  all  living  men,  has  the  most  right  to  speak 
authoritatively  upon  this  matter.  I  refer  to  Mr. 
Rush,  whose  name  is  well  and  favorably  known 
to  the  whole  country,  which  he  has  served  with 
honor  and  ability  in  various  high  capacities,  at 
home  and  abroad,  and  who  was  our  Minister  in 
England,  when  this  doctrine  was  first  broached. 
I  have  already  expreeeed  the  pleasure  I  felt  at  the 


progress  this  great  American  principle  had  made, 
and  at  the  hold,  it  had  obtained  upon  the  public 
mind,  and  especially  at  the  adhesion  to  it,  which 
had  been  pronounced  here  by  two  able  and  dis 
tinguished  Senators.  It  has  grown  in  favor, 
rapidty  but  firmly;  for  the  tenth  year  has  not  yet 
passed  away,  since  I  addressed  the  Senate  upon 
the  subject,  and  they  refused  even  to  refer  it  to 
the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  for  examin 
ation.  Mr.  Buchanan  said  well  and  truly,  in 
one  of  his  notes  to  Lord  Clarendon,  that,  "when 
first  announced,  more  than  thirty  years  ago,  it 
was  hailed  with  enthusiastic  approbation  by  the 
American  people;  and  since  that  period,  different 
Presidents  of  the  United  States  have  repeated  it 
in  their  messages  to  Congress,  and  always  with 
unmistakable  indications  of  public  approbation." 

When  this  subject  was  before  us,  in  one  of  its 
almost  periodical  visits,  some  years  since,  I  said: 
"  Rut  these  resolutions,  (resolutions  recognizing 
the  doctrine,)  or  equivalent  ones,  embodying  the 
same  principles,  will  pass  the  Legislature  of  the 
United  States.  Their  passage  is  but  a  question 
of  time.  They  may  fail  to-day,  and  they  may 
fail  again.  Timidity,  or  imbecility,  may  overrule 
that  firm  sagacity  which  befits  our  condition.  It 
is  just  as  certain,' that  these  principles  themselves 
will  be  permanently  engrafted  into  the  American 
policy,  and  in  the  most  imposing  form,  as  that 
they  are  now  engrafted  in  the  hearts  of  the 
American  people." 

What,  sir,  is  the  Monroe  doctrine  ?  Let  Mr. 
Monroe  answer  the  question.  In  his  annual 
message  to  Congress,  in  1823,  he  announced  his 
views  upon  two  important  subjects.  They  are 
as  follows,  and  are  to  be  found  in  different  parts 
of  the  message: 

"  1.  That  it  was  impossible  for  the  Allied 
Powers  to  extc.nd  their  political  system  to  any 
part  of  America,  without  endangering  our  peace 
and  happiness,  and  equally  impossible,  therefore, 
that  we  should  behold  such  interference  with  in 
difference." 

"  2.  That  the  occasion  had  been  judged  proper 
for  asserting,  as  a  principle,  in  which  the  rights 
and  interests  of  the  United  States  were  involved, 
that  the  American  continents,  by  the  free  and  in 
dependent  condition,  which  they  had  assumed 
and  maintained,  were  henceforth  not  to  be  con 
sidered  as  subjects  for  future-colonization  by  any 
European  Power." 

It  is  extraordinary,  sir,  that  any  one  could  sup 
pose,  that  these  declarations  had  reference,  only, 
to  the  peculiar  position  of  the  Spanish  colonies. 
The  first  had,  but  the  second  was  addressed  to 
all  nations,  and  was 'intended  to  operate  during 
all  time.  It  was  the  annunciation  of  -a  new  line 
of  policy.  On  what  was  it  founded?  On 'the 
situation  of  our  country,  and  of  the  various  States 
of  this  continent,  which  demanded  a  system — as 
Mr.  Jefferson  said,  "  separate  and  apart  from 
that  of  Europe."  For  ages  after  the  discovery, 
the  colonies,  planted  in  this  hemisphere,  were  the 
mere  appendages  of  the  mother  countries;  used 
for  the  purposes  of  trade,  and  without  the  slight 
est  view  to  the  establishment  of  any  enlarged  pol 
icy  for  their  prosperity  or  increase.  They  were 
useful  in  peace  for  the  purposes  of  commerce; 
and  in  war,  to  aid  in  its  prosecution.  When  the 
successful  result  of  our  Revolution  established  an 
independent  power  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic, 


it  began  to  be  perceived,  that  new  interests  had 
arisen,  which  would  necessarily  lead  to  great 
changes.  And  when  the  Spanish  colonies  took 
the  same  position,  as  sovereign  States,  it  became 
evident,  that  the^time  had  arrived  for  some  deci 
sive  action  upon  the  subject.  It  was  impossible 
jj  for  the  United  States  to  permit,  if  they  could 
!'  prevent  it,  the  recolonization  of  those  countries, 
or  the  establishment  of  new  colonies.  They  could 
not  suffer  a  state  of  things,  which  would  forever 
connect  those  vast  regions  with  European  Powers, 
making  them  parties  to  distant  wars— dynastic, 
ambitious,  and  what  not — in  which  they  had  no 
concern;  and  thus  endangering  cur  safety  and  our 
interests — placed  as  they  were  on  our  very  bor 
ders,  keeping  us  in  perpetual  alarm.  The  great 
code  of  public  law  is  not  a  rigid,  unbending  one. 
It  accommodates  itself  to  the  advancing  condition 
of  the  world;  of  which  power  of  adaptation 
many  examples  are  on  record,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  principle  of  the  right  of  occupation,  resulting 
from  discovery,  and  the  abrogation  of  the  claim 
of  dominion  over  what  was  called  the  narrow 
seas.  Many  other  instances  arc  to  be  found,  but 
I  shall  not  stop  to  seek  them.  The  question  is 
well  touched  by  Mr.  Canning,  who  said  to  Mr. 
Rush: 

"  It  concerned  the  United  State?,  under  aspects  and  in 
terests,  as  immediate  and  commanding,  as  it  did  or  could 
any  of  the  States  of  Europe.  They  were  the  first  Power 
on  that  continent,  and  confessedly  the  leading  Power.  They 
were  connected  with  Spanish  America  by  their  position,  as 
with  Europe  by  their  .relations;  and  thoy  also  stood  con 
nected  with  those  new  States  by  political  relations.  Was 
it  possible  they  could  see  with  indifference  their  fate  de 
cided  only  by  Europe?  Could  Europe  expect  such  indiffer 
ence  ?  H  ad  not  a  new  epoch  arrived  in  the  relative  position 
of  the  United  States  towards  Europe,  which  Europe  must 
acknowledge?  Were  the  great  political  and  commercial 
interests,  which  hung  upon  the  destinies  of  the  new  conti 
nent,  to  be  canvassed  and  adjusted  in  this  hemisphere,  (Eu 
rope,)  without  the  cooperation,  or  even  knowledge,  of  the 
United  States?" 

And  to  the  same  purport  speaks  Mr.  Everett 
in  one  of  the  most  admirable  letters  to  be  found 
in  the  whole  history  of  diplomacy.  He  said, 
speaking  of  the  influence  of  the  United  States: 

"  But  a  new  element  of  incalculable  importance  in  ref 
erence  to  territorial  arrangements  is  henceforth  to  be  recog 
nized  in  America." 

This  principle  of  European  non-interference  in 
the  affairs  of  this  continent  has  been  advocated, 
and  brought  before  Congress  and  the  country,  by 
three  Presidents  of  the  United  States  at  different 
intervals,  and  under  circumstances,  calling  for 
action.  In  Europe,  such  a  HIIQ  of  policy  might 
well  be  marked  out  by  the  executive  authority, 
as  that  department  of  the  Government  possesses 
the  power  to  enforce  it,  being  vested  with  the 
right  to  make  war.  But  here  the  Executive  oc 
cupies  a  very  different  position,  and  he  can  estab 
lish  authoritatively  no  such  principle,  without  the 
cooperation  of  Congress.  He  may  recommend, 
but  the  Legislature  alone  can  sanction  and  en 
force  his  views.  We  ought,  sir,  years  ago,  by 
congressional  interposition,  to  have  made  this 
system  of  policy  an  American  system  by  a  solemn 
declaration;  and,  if  we  had  done  so,  we  should 
have  spared  ourselves  much  trouble,  and  no  little 


mortification.  But  we  let  the  time  pass  by,  with 
out  appreciating  our  high  responsibilities,  leaving 
important  interests  to  be  the  sport  of  circum 
stances.  And  why  this  indifference  to  a  measure, 
|  urged  upon  us  by  so  many  grave  considerations? 


G 


The   honorable  Senator  from  New  York  [Mr. 
SEWARD]  said,  the  other  day,  that  this  doctrine 
v.ras  an  abstraction,  and  had  therefore  found  no 
favor  with  Congress.     Sir,  it  was  never  an  ab 
straction.     There  never  was  a  moment,  when  its  j 
res  >lute   confirmation    by   Congress   would    not  jj 
have  been  of  the  highest  importance  to  the  honor, 
the  interest,  and  the  safety  of  our  country.     The 
!  itive  confirmation  would  have  been  no  more 
an  abstract  declaration,  than  the  executive  rec 
ommendation.     Both  the  one  and  the  other  were 
demanded  by  the  gravest  considerations.     No,  jj 
sir,  it  was  not  the  fear  of  abstractions,  which  in-  |i 
terfercd  between  Congress  and  this  good  work.  L 
It  was  some  undefined  apprehension,  that,  if  we  ii 
spoke  the  words,  we  must  adhere  to  them;  and  !| 
that,  if  we  adhered  to  them,  they  would  be  words 
of  terrible  import  to  our  country.     I  am  happy 
to  believe,  that  timidity  is  giving  way  to  a  wise 
firmness. 

Mr.  SEWARD.  Will  the  honorable  Senator 
allow  me  to  ask  him  a  question  at  this  point  by 
way  of  elucidating  this  matter? 

Mr.  CASS.     Certainly. 

Mr.  SEWARD.  I  desire  to  avail  myself  of  j 
the  honorable  Senator's  recollection  about  the  oc 
casion  when  the  debate,  to  which  he  alludes,  took 
place.  Was  there  at  that  time  before  Congress  a 
practical  question  of  conflict,  or  apprehended  con 
flict,  in  regard  to  any  portion  of  the  territory  of 
Central  America?  1  ask  the  question,  because  I 
have  quite  forgotten  the  occasion  on  which  the 
debate  to  which  he  refers  took  place. 

Mr.  CASS.  I  beg  pardon;  I  referred  to  the 
honorable  Senator's  declaration  on  the  introduc 
tion  of  the  President's  message. 

Mr.  SEWARD.  I  spoke  then  of  the  reason 
why  it  failed  upon  the  occasions  when  it  had  been 
brought  forward,  referring  especially  to  an  occa 
sion  since  I  had  been  a  member  of  this  House, 
when  the  honorable  Senator  from  Pvlichigan  him 
self  brought  it  forward,  and  I  thought  then  it  was 
presented  without  an  occasion. 

Mr.  CASS.  Mr.  President,  so  far  as  I  know, 
the  first  attempt  to  procure  the  cooperation  of  the 
American  Legislature  in  this  doctrine  was  on  its 
redeclaration  by  Mr.  Polk.  He  certainly  intro 
duced  it  in  reference,  to  the  then  pending  di 
ties  in  regard  to  Oregon.  There  was  a  plain, 
practical  point.  We  refused  to  say  a  word,  and, 
I  repeat,  we  refused  then  even  to  take  it  (the 
subject)  into  consideration.  On  the  other  occa 
sion  fo  which  the  honorable  Senator  refers,  there 
was  a  resolution,  I  think,  introduced  by  myself; 
but  I  do  not  recollect,  what  particular  hearing  it 
had,  except  its  general  bearing,  on  the  welfare,  of 
the  country. 

Mr.  SEWARD.     That  is  what  I  understood,  \ 
and  therefore  1  asked  the  question. 

Mr.  CASQ.   Tlie  circumstances  connected  with  j 
Mr.  Monroe  *s  communication  are  well  known, and  i 
properly  called  for  the  consideration  and  action  of  j 
Congress;  but  it  found  neither.     When  Mr.  Polk 
adopted  and  renewed  the  declaration,  the  Oregon 
controversy  wa.s  pending,  and  it  was  a  peculiarly 
fitting  occasion  for  a  union  of  the  legislative  and 
executive   powers,  in  order  to  bring  this  great 
work   to  its  consummation.     Still,  nothing  was 
done.     And,  now,  this  subject  is  again  brought 
before  us  by  another  President,  and  with  a  view 
to  its  direct  bearing  upon  the  discussion,  in  which 


we  find  ourselves  engaged  with  England.  Some 
years  since,  as  I  have  stated,  the  debate  in  the 
Senate  was  brought  on  by  resolutions  intro 
duced  by  myself,  affirming  the  concurrence  of 
Congress  in  the  anti-colonial  doctrine.  It  was 
fruitless  in  any  useful  result,  and  thus  this  Amer 
ican  principle  has  been  but  a  barren  diet ;;.>/;,  as 
Lord  Clarendon  calls  it,  and  will  never  fructify 
until  it  receives  the  sanction  of  the  Federal  Legis 
lature. 

The  honorable  Senator  from  New  Hampshire, 
[Mr.  HALE,]  in  the  remarks  he  made  upon  this 
subject  a  few  days  ago,  referred  to  the  \  i>  -\\  s  ex 
pressed  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  in  the  Senate,  in  relation 
to  this  doctrine,  and  maintained,  that  no  general 
principle  of  action  was  laid  down  by  Mr.  Monroe, 
but  that  his  efforts  were  limited  to  the  preserva 
tion  of  the  independent  States  of  Spanish  origin 
from  the  grasp  of  the  Holy  Alliance,  as  the  union 
of  various  despotic  powers  to  put  down  popular 
demonstrations  was  called.  The  unholy  alliance 
would  have  been  its  proper  designation. 

There  is  no  doubt,  sir,  but  that  the  threatening 
aspect  of  affairs  in  relation  to  these  Spanish 
States,  and  the  known  project  to  bring  them  under 
the  dominion  of  some  Bourbon  prince,  was  the. 
prominent  cause,  which  led  Mr.  Monroe  to  inter 
pose  upon  that  occasion.  Circumstances  do  not 
create  principles.  They  call  them  into  action. 
Circumstances  occurred,  which  directed  the  atten 
tion  of  the  American  Government  to  an  approach 
ing  crisis,  and  it  then  investigated,  not  only  its 
line  of  action,  but  the  ground  upon  which  that  ac 
tion  could  be  justified,  and  the  result  was  this  well- 
known  declaration.  In  our  position,  it  is  one  of 
the  great  elements  of  our  strength,  and  of  our 
means  of  self-defense.  It  is  perpetual,  as  well  in 
its  obligations,  as  in  the  security,  it  brings  with  it. 
It  interfered  with  no  existing  rights,  but  looked 
to  the  future,  with  a  view  to  guard  that  from 
danger. 

Mr.  Monroe  promulgated,  what  is  known 
through  the  world  as  his  doctrine — the  American 
doctrine  of  American  self-preservation.  It  is  now 
sought  to  degrade  it  to  a  mere  temporary  expe 
dient,  living  while  the  Holy  Alliance  lived,  and 
dying  with  the  death  of  that  unprincipled  league. 
'Now,  sir,  Mr.  Monroe  is  the  best  expositor  of 
his  own  views.  Hear  him.  In  his  annual  mes- 
•;f  182-i,  when  the  danger  from  the  Holy  Al 
liance  had  passed  away,  he  said,  renewing  his 
iiuendation,  that  we  had  no  concern  with 
European  wars,  but  "  with  regard  to  our  neigh 
bors  our  situation  is  different.  It  is  impo. 
for  the  Euro]- can  Governments  to  interfere  in  their 
ally  iii  those  alluded  to,  which 
are  vital,  without  aiiecting  us." 

Halt,  sir,  we  have  another  witness  to  introduce, 
whom  no  American  can  hear  without  respect  and 
gratitude,  the  writer  of  the  Declaration  of  Indc- 
•  riiuvh  of  the  Democratic  faith, 
the  statesman  and  patriot,  second  only  to  Wash 
ington  in  the  estimation  of  his  countrymen.  Mr. 
Monroe,  during  his  whole  Presidency,  was  in 
the  habit  of  the  most  confidential  communication 
with  Mr.  Jefl'erson  upon  all  questions  of  serious 
concern.  He  consulted  him  upon  this  subject, 
and  here  follows  the  answer,  dated  October  24, 
1823.  Never  were  sentiments  sounder  in  them 
selves,  or  more  beautifully  expressed: 

"  The  question  presented  by  the  letters  you  have  sent  me 


Is  the  most  momentous,  which  has  ever  been  offered  to  my 
contemplation,  since  that  of  Independence.  That  made  us 
a  nation ;  this  sets  our  compass,  and  points  the  course,  which 
tve  are  to  steer  through  the  ocean  of  time.  And  never  coukl 
we  ombark  on  it  under  circumstances  more  auspicious. 
Our  first  and  fundamental  maxim  should  be,  never  to  en- 
tiiiiL'N1  ourselves  in  the  broils  of  Europe.  Our  second,  never 
to  suffer  Europe  to  intermeddle  with  cis-Jiilantic  affairs. 
America,  North  and  South,  has  a  set  of  interests,  distinct 
from  those  of  Europe,  and  peculiarly  her  own.  She  should, 
therefore,  have  a  system  of  her  own,  separate  and  apart 
from  that  of  Europe ;  the  last  is  laboring  to  become  the 
dornicil  of  .despotism — our  endeavor  should  surely  be  to 
make  our  hemisphere  that  of  freedom." 

And  now  there  are  those,  who  would  mar  the 
magnificent  figure  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  by  converting 
his  ocean  of  time  into  a  mere  duck  pond,  and  his 
fundamental  maxim,  never  "  to  suffer  Europe  to 
intermeddle  with  cis-Atlantic  affairs, ' '  into  the  his 
torical  recollection  of  a  temporary  project  to  save 
our  neighboring  States  from  a  blow  aimed  at  that 
time  .at  their  safety,  and  all  danger  from  which 
passed  away,  as  suddenly  as  it  had  arisen. 

And  there  is  another  voice  from  the  tomb,  which 
speaks  the  same  confirmatory  language,  respect- 
in  this  doctrine — the  voice  of  one  whose  memory 
will  live  upon  the  pages  of  our  history,  and  in  the 
hearts  of  our  countrymen,  as  long  as  true  genius 
and  elevated  patriotism  shall  find  admirers. 

In  1825,  Mr.  Clay,  then  Secretary  of  State,  in 
a  Jpttcr  to  Mr.  Poinsett,  says,  "that  the  then 
President,  Mr.  Adams,  who  was  Secretary  of 
State  when  Mr.  Monroe  advanced  his  doctrine, 
coincides  in  'both  principles,'  (non-interference 
and  anti-colonization ,)  which  were  laid  down  after 
much  and  anxious  deliberation  on  the  part  of  the 
late  Administration.  The  President, (Mr.  Adams,) 
who  then  formed  a  part  of  it,  continues  to  coin 
cide  wj^h  both,  and  you  will  urge  upon  the  Gov 
ernment  of  Mexico  the  utility  and  expediency  of 
asserting  the  same  principles  on  all  proper  occa 
sions." 

It,  is  obviouTs,  sir,  that  Mr.  Calhoun  was  under 
a  misapprehension  in  relation  to  the  views  of  Mr. 
Monroe  upon  this  subject.  He  himself  stated, 
that  his  recollection  of  it  was  imperfect,  and  that 
it  was  so,isbeyoTid  all  contradiction.  He  con 
sidered  that  the  "  declaration  of  Mr.  Monroe  had 
reference  to  a  specific  case,  (the  Holy  Alliance,) 
and  stopped  there."  "  Mr.  Monroe,"  he  added, 
"  was  a  wise  man,  and  had  no  design  of  burdening 
the  country  with  a  task  it  could  not  perform.  He 
knew  there  was  a  broader  declaration  made  by  the 
gentleman,  then  Secretarjr  of  State, "  &c.  What 
Mr.  Calhoun  here  alluded  to,  I  profess  my  in 
ability  to  comprehend.  No  declaration  could  well 
be  broader,  than  that^of  Mr.  Monroe;  and  what 
ever  agency  or  advice  ?»Ir.  Adams  may  have  had, 
or  given  in  the  matter,  its  responsible  paternity 
rests  upon  the  Chief  Magistrate.  I  have  reason 
to  believe,  that  Mr.  Adams  was  anxious  for  the 
measure,  though  his  precise  share  in  it  I  do  not 
know.  Indeed,  Mr.  Clay,  by  his  authority,  as  I 
have  shown,  avowed  his  concurrence  in  it.  But, 
sir,  those  who  knew  Mr.  Monroe  well  know  that 
he  was  entitled  to  the  character  cf  wisdom,  here 
given  to  him  by  Mr.  Calhoun  He  was  a  safe 
and  sagacious  statesman,  cautious  in  his  investi 
gations,  looking  narrowly  into  every  question 
presenting  itself,  hearing  all  that  could  be  said, 
and  then  deciding  for  himself,  and  adhering  with 
unshaken  firmness  to  his  decisions.  I  knew  him 
well,  and  hold  him  in  remembrance  as  a  true 
patriot  and  a  pure  one,  and  the  worthy  successor 


|1  of  his  personal  and  political  friends,  Jefferson 

I  and  Madison.     The  declaration  of  Mr.  Monroe 

il  contained  the  enunciation  of  a  general  principle, 

I  arid  its  application  to  a  particular  case,  while  Mr. 

Calhoun  has  confined  it  to  the  latter,  divesting  it 

thus  of  all  claim  to  the  establishment  of  a  great 

line  of  policy. 

It  has  been  said  here  more  than  once,  and  I 
think,  though  I  am  not  certain,  that  it  was  said 
by  Mr.  Calhoun,  that  the  course  of  action  of 
Mr.  Monroe  upon  this  subject,  was  the  result  of 
a  suggestion  made  by  Mr.  Canning  to  Mr.  Rush. 
This  is  another,  among  the  many  errors,  which 
seem  to  have  clustered  around  this  whole  matter. 
It  is  easy  to  show  this. 

As  early  as  July,  3823,  Mr.  Rush  received 
from  the  Department  of  State  a  dispatch,  contain 
ing  the  views  of  the  President  upon  the  Spanish- 
American  question,  corresponding,  substantially, 
with  the  ground,  subsequently  taken  in  the  mes 
sage.  They  were  transmitted  to  him,  not  for  any 
immediate  diplomatic  action,  but  to  put  him  in 
possession  of  the  opinions  of  the  Government, 
as  circumstances  might  arise,  rendering  it  neces 
sary  for  him  to  be  acquainted  with  them.  Mr. 
Rush,  I  understand,  had  his  first  conversation 
with  Mr.  Canning,  at  the  request  of  the  latter, 
towards  the  end  of  August  in  that  year;  and  his 
dispatches,  announcing  the  result  of  that,  and  of 
other  subsequent  interviews,  did  not  reach  Wash 
ington  until  about  the  middle  of  November,  just 
before  the  opening  of  Congress,  as  Mr.  Rush  says, 
in  his  interesting  narrative  of  this  diplomatic  epi 
sode.  Now,  I  have  already  read  an  extract  of  a 
letter  from  Mr.  Jefferson  to  Mr.  Monroe,  dated 
October  23,  1823,  by  which  it  appears,  that  the 
President  had  communicated  to  the  retired  Patri 
arch  his  impressions,  and  probably  his  inten 
tions,  in  relation  to  this  whole  subject,  which 
met,  as  we  havc^seen,  the  most  cordial  approba 
tion;  and  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  a  similar  cor 
respondence,  with  a  like  approval,  took  place 
with  Mr.  Madison.  It  is  obvious,  that  a  course, 
involving  such  important  principles,  and  fraught, 
it  might  be,  with  startling  consequences,  must 
have  been  some  time  under  the  consideration  of 
a  cautious  statesman,  like  Mr.  Monroe,  before  it 
could  assume  a  shape,  proper  to  be  submitted  for 
the  opinion  of  Mr.  Jefferson.  It  is  clearly  im 
possible,  that  the  suggestions  of  Mr.  Canning 
could  have  led  to  the  establishment  of  this  doc 
trine,  or  to  its  promulgation.  Why,  sir,  it  is  a 
well-known  historical  fact,  that  when  the  massage 
of  Mr.  Monroe  reached  Europe,  it  excited  a  great 
sensation  among  the  politicians,  and  nowhere  a 
greater  one  than  in  England.  Mr.  Canning  had 
proposed  to  Mr.Rush  that  the  United  States  should 
take  ground  against  the  extension  of  the  schemes 
of  the  Holy  Alliance  -to  the  Spanish-American 
States,  and  promised  the  cooperation  of  England. 
The  proposition  reached  here,  when,  as  we  have 
seen,  Mr.  Monroe  was  about  to  submit  his  doctrine, 
to  Congress.  He  accepted  the  suggestion  of  Mr. 
Canning,  as  to  the  particular  case,  which  wag 
all  the  British  Government  wanted,  but  he  also 
accompanied  his  action  with  a  declaration  of  the 
principles,  which  he  thought  should  guide  his 
country  thereafter.  Now,  sir,  Mr.  Canning  did 
not  partake  of  the  mistake,  which  prevails  here. 
He  saw  that  the  special  interposition  was  tempo 
rary,  but  that  the  doctrine  itself  was  perpetual. 


8 


I  am  informed  by  one  who  knows,  that  no  man 
in  Europe  was  more  surprised  than  was  Mr. 
Canning,  when  he  found  that  the  American  Gov 
ernment  had  gone  so  far  beyond  his  wishes  and 
expectations.  And  we  see,  sir,  to  this  day,  that 
the  point  is  perfectly  understood  in  England;  for 
Lord  Clarendon,  in  his  statement,  said  to  Mr. 
Buchanan,  but  the  other  day,  that  the  anti-colo 
nization  declaration  of  Mr.  Monroe  was  "  but  the 
dictum  of  the  distinguished  person,  who  declared 
it,  but  her  Majesty's  Government  cannot  admit 
that  doctrine,  as  an  international  axiom,  which 
ought  to  regulate  the  conduct  of  European  States. " 
Here  is  no  attempt  to  avoid  the  principle,  nor  is 
there  any  in  the  answer  of  Mr.  Buchanan,  who 
frankly  avows  his  adhesion  to  the  "dictum," 
and  adds,  with  true  American  spirit,  that  "  if  the 
occasion  required,  he  would  cheerfully  undertake 
the  task  of  justifying  tf?fe  wisdom  and  sound  policy 
of  the  Monroe  doctrine,  in  reference  to  the  nations 
of  Europe,  as  well  as  those  of  the  American 
Continent."  I  wish  our  Minister  had  been  called 
upon  to  do  this  work.  He  would  have  done  it 
well  and  conclusively,  and  in  a  manner,  which.  I 
doubt  not,  would  have  been  satisfactory  to  his  own 
countrymen,  if  not  to  European  politicians,  and 
which  might  have  silenced  objections  at  home.. 

Mr.  Canning,  sir,  arrogated  the  credit  of  one 
great  measure  to  himself,  .to  which  he  had  no 
just  claim.  Let  him  not  have  the  merit  of  an 
other,  to  which  he  advanced  no  pretensions.  He 
said,  in  quite  a  grandiloquent  vein,  in  the  British 
House  of  Commons,  that  he  had  called  the  Span 
ish-American  Republics  into  being,  and  his  words 
fell  with  proud  assent  upon  English  cars.  But, 
sir,  the  boast  had  no  foundation.  At  the  very 
time  he  made  it,  those  Republics  had  achieved 
thoir  own  independence,  and  were  beyond  the 
reach  of  Spanish  resubjugation,  and  that  inde 
pendence  had  been  formally  acknowledged  by  the 
United  States.  I  think  1  am  correct  in  the  state 
ment  of  this  fact. 

Mr.  SUMNER,  (in  his  seat.)     It  is  so. 

Mr.  CASS.  I  believe,  sir,  that  to  Mr.  Clay, 
more  than  to  any  other  statesman,  American  or 
European,  was  due  the  entrance  of  those  States 
into  the  family  of  nations. 

But,  after  all,  sir,  this  inquiry  into  the  origin  of 
the  Monroe  doctrine  has  but  a  speculative  inter 
est.  To  adopt  an  expression,  familiar  to  the 
ears  of  Senators,  it  is  well  "  to  vindicate  the  truth 
of  history,"  and  to  vindicate  it  upon  this  point; 
but  tiiis  great  c.is-Atlantic  principle  does  not  now 
derive  its  strength  from  its  origin  or  its  author; 
it  rests  upon  a  surer  foundation,  upon  the  cordial 
concurrence  of  the  American  people,  and  is  des 
tined  to  be  a  broad  line  upon  the  chart  of  their 
policy.  One  motive  with  some  of  us — perhaps 
with  many  of  us — in  the  Senate,  for  supporting  the 
Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  was,  that,  if  carried  out  in 
good  faith,  it  would  peaceably  do  the  work  of  the 
Monroe  doctrine,  and  free  an  important  portion 
of  our  continent  from  European  interference. 
That  it  has  so  far  signally  failed  is  no  fault  on  our 
side.  Whether  it  is  to  be  a  triumph  as  well  as  a 
fault,  on  the  other,  will  depend  on  the  firmness 
and  self-respect,  which  may  direct  and  accompany 
our  course.  I  am  well  aware,  that,  during  the 
premiership  of  Lord  Palmerston,  an  amicable  ar 
rangement,  or  rather  a  fair'  fulfillment  of  the  treaty, 
agreeably  to  its  obvious  import,  and  the  avowed 


object  of  the  parties,  is  an  event  hardly  to  be 
hoped  for.  I  have  nothing  to  say  of  that  distin 
guished  English  statesman,  incompatible  with  his 
own  high  position,  or  this  high  place,  where  cir 
cumstances  have  given  to  his  views,  to  his  tem 
perament  perhaps,  an  importance  rarely  attached 
to  a  public  man  out  of  his  own  country.  But  he 
is  not  only  the  official  head  of  the  British  admin 
istration;  he  is  also  its  guiding  spirit;  and  his 
probable  course  is  no  matter  of  indifference  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States.  Some  time  since, 
sir,  in  this  Chamber,  I  took  occasion  to  say  that, 
of  all  the  active  public  men  of  England,  I  con 
sidered  Lord  Palmerston  the  most  unfriendly  to 
our  country,  and  that  his  exertions  would  never 
be  wanting  in  any  effort  to  oppose  us.  This  opin 
ion  was  received  with  some  surprise,  and  a  good 
deal  of  incredulity,  but  I  believe  his  sentiments 
are  now  pretty  well  understood  here,  and  nothing 
favorable  is  expected  from  him.  Sir ,  he  un'doubt- 
cdly  nourishes  the  strongest  prejudices  against 
our  institutions,  our  progress,  and  our  prospects; 
and  there  is  hardly  a  well-informed  American, 
returning  from  Europe,  who  will  not  confirm  this 
i-epresentation.  His  observation  to  Mr.  Castel- 
lon,  the  Nicaraguan  Minister,  is  indicative,  not 
only  of  his  sentiments  towards  us,  but  of  his 
estimate  of  our  firmness.  He  said: 

"  We  have  been  disposed  to  treat  the  United  States  with 
so;ne  degree  of  consideration;  but,  in  reference  to  this 
question,  it  is  a  matter  of  total  indillenMico  to  her  Ma 
jesty's  Government  what  ehe  may  say  or  do." 

Very  complimentary,  this,  to  our  national  pride. 
His  lordship  may  yet  be  disappointed.  From 
the  beginning,  he  has  been  no  friend  of  this  treaty; 
nor  do  I  believe  it  would  have  been  formed,  had 
he  directed  the  Government  at  the  time.*  And  I 
believe,  now,  sir,  that  these  difficulties  would  be 
adjusted  by  an  honest  interpretation  being  put 
upon  this  convention,  within  oA  month  after 
the  accession  of  a  liberal  statesman  to  the  station 
now  held  by  Lord  Palmerston.  Till  that  event 
takes  place,  it  will  be  the  dictate  of  true  wisdom 
not  to  anticipate,  though  we 'will  still  hope  for, 
an  amicable  arrangement — but  to  take  counsel 
from  the  duty  we  owe  to  ourselves.  The  treaty, 
from  its  commencement,  has  been  set  at  naught 
ujym  the  most  flimsy  pretexts. 

'/ft  is  evident  that  Lord  Clarendon  has  adopted 
the  views,  and  participates  in  the  feelings  of  Lord 
Palmerston  upon  this  whole  subject,  as  also  that 
the  pretensions  they  have  advanced  will  be  tena 
ciously  adhered  to.  For  myself,  I  do  not  sro 
how  they  are  to.be  abandoned  without  self-stulti 
fication  by  tho'se,  who  have  thus  far  so  strenu 
ously  maintained  them.  The  attempt  to  torture 
language  to  the  accommodation  of  preconceived 
purposes  was  never  more  palpable  than  in  this 
case.  Let  any  one  compare  the  able  and  frank 
opinion  of  Mr.  Johnson,  who  was  our  Attorney 
General,  when  this  treaty  was  negotiated,  with  the 
opinion  given  by  the  Gluecn's  Advocate,  the  la\y 
officer  of  the  British  Government  in  its  communi 
cation  with  other  Powers,  and  he  cannot  but  bo 
struck  with  the  contrast.  Before  I  sit  down,  1 
shall  ask  to  have  Mr.  Johnson's  opinion  read  at  the 
Clerk's  table.  It  is  entitled  to  high  commendation 
for  its  clearness  and  ability;  and  I  am  happy  to 
have  this  opportunity  of  testifying  my  respect  and 
regard  for  that  able  and  accomplished  gentleman. 
And  what  says  the  Queen's  Advocate,  that  high 


9 


legal  counselor?  Why,  that  the  treaty  provides 
that  neither  party  shall  occupy,  or  fortify,  tor 
colonize,  or  assume,  or  exercise  any  dominion — 
[Mr.  CLAYTON.  «iny  dominion — meaning  ,any 
dominion  whatever.] — over  Central  America;  yet 
that  either  party  may,  at  its  pleasure,  send  a  fleet 
or  army  into  any  part  of  that  vast  region,  if  it  abstains 
from  occupying,  or  fortifying,  or  assuming,  or  exer 
cising  dominon  therein.  Now,  sir,  all  this,  I  repeat, 
is  not  less  an  insult  to  common  sense,  than  to 
the  position  of  our  country  before  the  world.  It  is 
equally  in  defiance  of  the  spirit,  and  of  the  text  of 
the  arrangement.  Here  is  a  mutual  convention, 
entered  into,  for  the  purpose  of  securing  an  im 
portant  region  from  the  control  and  influence  of 
the  contracting  parties,  professing  to  leave  it  to 
its  own  management  and  its  own  fate ;  and  now 
it  is  maintained  that  fleets  and  armies  may  invade 
that  country,  (I  do  not  speak  of  a  just  war;  that 
is  without  the  treaty;  but  of  armaments  sent  for 
protection,  as  it  is  called,)  provided  they  exercise 
no  dominion.  I  desire  to  know  how  a  British  army 
could  encamp  upon  the  soil  of  Nicaragua  "with out 
occupation  and  the  assumption  of  dominion  ? 
They  might  not  choose  to  interfere  with  the  inter 
nal  administration  of  the  country;  but  that  volun 
tary  forbearance  would  not  affect  their  power  or 
influence  in  the  slightest  degree.  You  might  as 
well  say,  that  the  Austrians  exercise  no  dominion 
at  Ancona,  nor  the  French  at  Rome,  because  the 
local  police  at  both  places  is  left  to  do  its  own 
ungracious  work.  "Dominion,"  says  the  great 
English  lexicographer,  "is  power;"  and  to  con 
tend  that  an  English  army,  with  the  panoply  of  icar, 
could  traverse  one  of  those  feeble  Central  Ameri 
can  States  without  power — powerless  indeed  ! — 
is  to  say  that  language  has  lost  its  force,  and  that 
conventions  for  the  accommodation  of  national 
differences  are  but  waste  paper,  to  be  read,  as  the 
purposes  of  interest  or  ambition  may  dictate. 

It  was  not  difficult,  it  appears  to  me,  to  antici 
pate  the  present  state  of  things.  Certainly,  I 
thought  I  foresaw  it,  and  I  predicted  it  three  years 
ago.  Lord  "Clarendon  kindly  wrote  a  dispatch 
to  Mr.  Crampton,  dated  May  27,  1853,  a  gratu 
itous  one  for  our  benefit,  designed  upon  its  face 
for  publication,  in  which  he  said:  "  As  great  mis 
conception  appears  to  prevail,  not  only  among 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  but  also  among 
persons  placed  in  high  and  responsible  situations 
in  the  governments  of  that  country,  respecting" 
the  "engagements  of  Great  Britan  under  tiie  Ciay- 
ton-Buhver  treaty,"  he  thought  it  desirable  to  put 
it  on  its  right  footing.  He  does  so  by  his  conclu 
sions,  fortified  by  the  opinion  of  the  dueen's 
Advocate,  to  which  I  have  already  referred,  and 
which  proves,  that  a  weak  country  may  be  tra 
versed  by  an  unresisted  army  exercising  no  power, 
and  occupying  no  space;  and  that  such  a  warlike 
expedition  is  the  fair  fulfillment  of  a  treaty,  which 
sought;  with  jealous  vigilance,  to  exclude  both 
parties  from  the  exercise  of  any  influence  by  one, 
which  might  be  turned  to  the  injury  of  the  other. 
Lord  Clarendon,  in  this  letter  to  Mr.  Crampton, 
•  went  over  the  whole  matter,  and  this 'was  my  con 
clusion  as  to  the  course  of  the  British  Government: 
*'  They  will  hold  on  to  all  their  pretensions,  and 
will  not  sacrifice  their  interest  to  our  misconceptions. 
That  is  Lord  Clarendon's  term  for  our  construc 
tion  of  the  treaty."  The  fulfillment  has  come. 


I  referred,  a  few  days  since,  to  the  anxiety  of 
the  British  Government  to  obtain  an  ascendency 
in  the  South  American  country,  in  order  to  con 
trol  the  great  highway  across  the  Isthmus,  ren 
dered  of  incalculable  importance  by  our  acquisi 
tions  upon  the  Pacific  coast.  Accident  has  brought 
to  light  a  document  confirmatory  of  these  views. 
It  is  a  letter  from  the  British  vice  consul  at  Gre 
nada  to  Lord  Palmerston,  dated  April  4,  1849,  in 
which  that  functionary,  speaking  of  the  projects 
of  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  establish  a 
communication  with,  the  Pacific  by  the  route  of  the 
San  Juan,  says,  that  this,  and  other  circumstances, 
had  injured  the  British  interests,  and  that  the 
country  "  will  be  overrun  by  North  American 
adventurers,  unless  an  arrangement  is  made  by 
negotiation  for  a  protectorate  and  transit  favor 
able  to  British  interests,"  &c. 

But  the  gist  of  the  correspondence  is  in  the 
concluding  paragraph,  where  the  writer  says: 

"  The  welfare  of  rny  country,  and  desire  of  its  obtaining 
tlic  control  of  so  desirable  a  spot  in  the  commercial  world, 
and  tree  it  from  the  competition  of  aoad venturesome  a  race 
as.  the  North  American.*,  impel  me  to  address  your  lord 
ship  with  such  i'reedoni." 

"VVe  have  here  a  key  to  the  whole  line  of  policy, 
which  dictated,  and  yet  dictates,  the  course  of 
England.  There  was  little  necessity  for  the  con 
sul  to  deprecate  the  displeasure  of  Lord  Palmer 
ston.  The  proposition  went,  no  doubt,  to  the 
head  and  heart  of  his  lordship — perhaps  it  was 
followed  by  promotion.  The  prospect  that  a 
route  across  the  continent,  bjr  canal  or  railroad, 
would  be  undertaken  and  accomplished  by  our 
citizens,  unquestionably  led  the  British  Govern 
ment,  or  such  portion  of  it  as  favored  the  meas 
ure,  to  enter  into  this  treaty,  with  a  view  to  in 
sure  a  participation  in  the  advantages.  The  par 
ties  jointly  agreed,  in  the  words  1  have  already 
quoted,  that  neither  should  "  occupy  or  fortify,  or 
assume,  or  exercise  dominion  over  Central  Amer 
ica,  including  Mosquito,"  &c.  I  observed,  on  a 
former  occasion,  that  I  could  not  conceive  why 
the  word  "  occupy"  would  not  have  fulfilled  the 
intention  of  the  parties,  and  why  these  pleonasms 
were  introduced  into  the  treaty,  rendering  it  per 
haps  doubtful,  by  overloading  it  with  words.  I 
arn  now  enabled  to  do  justice  to  our  negotiator, 
the  honorable  Senator  from  Delaware,  [Mr.  CLAY- 
TOV,]  and  from  information  not  derived  from  him, 
and  to  say,  that  this  redundancy  of  language  was 
no  fault  of  his;  but  that  he  was  placed  in  a  situ 
ation,  which  rendered  it  proper  to  yield  thdugh 
inclined  against  it. 

Bat  I  must  also  make  the  amende  honorable,  and 
acknowledge,  that,  in  my  opinion,  formed  upon 
subsequent  circumstances,  whether  the  phrase 
ology  of  the  treaty  had  been  concise  or  prolix, 
the  construction  would  have  been  a  foregone  con 
clusion,  and  just  what  it  now  is.  We  should 
have  had  the  same  prudential  interpretation,  which 
is  hallowed  in  English  diplomacy,  and  which, 
many  years  since,  was  applied  to  a  treaty  between 
Spain  and  England,  in  relation  to  this  very  region 
of  country.  This  remarkable,  or  rather  remark 
ably  disgraceful,  incident  was  alluded  to  the  other 
day,  but  it  will  bear  repetition  as  a  useful  lesson 
in  the  mazes  of  a  tortuous  policy. 

A  treaty  was  concluded  in  1783,  between  Spain 
and  England,  the  sixth  article  of  which  provided 


10 


for  the  abandonment  of  the  Mosquito  country,  as 
a  portion  of  the  "  Continent  Espagnol."  There 
was  a  great  reluctance  on  the  part  of  the  British 
Cabinet  to  this  withdrawal,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  a  strong  desire  to  terminate  the  pending 
war  by  the  conclusion  -of  a  treaty.  The  King 
was  honestly  inclined,  and  hesitated  to  give  his 
assent.  Mr.  Fox,  then  one  of  the  Ministers, 
undertook  to  remove  his  objections.  He  urged, 
that  it  was  in  their  power  to  put  their  own  inter- 


have  debarred  ourselves  of  the  right  of  acquisi 
tion.  It  is  an  unequal  arrangement,  rendered  such, 
by  prudential  considerations,  producing  apalpablo 
breach  of  faith . 

What  are  the  complaints  we  prefer  against 
England  in  relation  to  this  treaty  ?  I  will  enu 
merate  them  as  succinctly  as  I  can: 

1.  We  complain,  as  a  general  allegation,  that 
constructions  are  put  upon  it  so  manifestly  incon 
sistent  with  its  purpose  and  language,  that  the 


prctation  upon  the  words,"  Continent  Espagnol,"  jj  very  assumption  is  felt  by  us  to  be  an  insult, and 
and  to  determine,  upon  prudential  considerations,     seen  to  be  such  by  th 


(that  is  the  term,)  "  whether  the  Mosquito  shore  | 
came  under  that  description  or  not."  And  this  | 
expedient  prevailed:  and,  though  Mr.  Fox  and  ; 
his  associates  knew  full  well,  to  speak  in  plain  j 
language,  that  they  were  cheating  the  Spaniards, ! 
who  thought,  as  everybody  else  thinks,  that  the 
5,  "  Spanish  continent,"  meant  that  portion  i 


the  world. 

2.  But  to  come  to  specific  statements,  we  further 
complain,  that  these  constructions  are  destructive 
of  the  objects  of  the  treaty.  It  is  now  said  by  Lord 
Clarendon,  that  this  instrument  is  prospective  in 
its  operation.  And  so  it- is.  If  it  had  but  a  retro 
active  bearing,  it  would  be  but  of  little  value.  It 
necessarily  operates  in  the  future,  like  almost  al 
national  arrangements.  But,  by  prospective  oper 
ation,  Lord  Clarendon  means  that,  in  some  most 
has  no  operation  at  all. 


words,     oj 

of  the  American  continent,  yet  the  treaty  was  con 
cluded  and  ratified,  and  prudential  considerations 
excluded 
The  Kin  _ 

hesitation,  and  considered  the  "circumstance  a|  tensions  cxisu 

very  untoward  one."    He  might  have  truly  qual- !  of  its  conclusion,  and  leaves  them  untouched  by 
ified  it  by  a  much  harsher  epithet.     I  am  under 
the  impression ,  that  the  same  prudential  rule  would 


led  the  Mosquito  shore  from  its  operation.  |  important  particulars,  it  h 

ling,  while  he  gave  his  consent,  did  so  with  '  He  claims,  that  it  passes  over  the  British  pre 

don.  and  considered  the  "  circumstance  a     tensions  existing  in  Central  America  at  the  time 


have  been  again  applied,  to  retain  the  same  Mos 
quito  country,  even  if  the  words  of  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty  had  been  less  equivocal  upon  this 
point  than  they  are,  if  that  is  possible. 

Mr.  President,  it  is  within  the  recollection  of 
the  Senate,  that  *ome  two  years  since,  I  had  a 
discussion  with  the  Senator  from  Delaware  upon 
this  treaty,  when  I  took  exceptions  to  a  portion 
of  its  phraseology,  as  well  as  to  other  circum 
stances,  connected  with  it.  I  never  doubted,  nor 
did  I  ever  express  a  doubt  of,  the  patriotic  pur 
pose  of  the  Senator;  and  I  renew  an  acknowledg 
ment  I  then  made,  that  during  the  progress  of  the 
negotiation,  he  did  me  the  honor  to  consult  me, 
as  well  as  other  Senators,  and  that  I  warmly  ap- 
prov£d  his  effort.  Now,  sir,  I  have  nothing  to 
say  as  to  these  past  differences  of  opinion;  they 
are  gone  by.  While  pending,  they  embraced 
questions  relating  to  our  internal  affairs — to  the 
course  and  conduct  of  a  functionary  of  our  own.  | 
But  now  we  are  drawn  into  a  discussion  with  a  j 
foreign  Government,  respecting  the  honest  inter 


its  provisions.     We  contend,  that  it  embraces  all 
the  country  named  in  it  that  is  not  expressly  ex- 


cepted;  and  that  its  operation  commences  from 
the  moment  of  its  ratification;  and  that  its  obliga 
tions  are  perpetual. 

This  claim,  that  the  British  possessions  held  at 
the  ratification  of  the  treaty  were  excepted'from 
iis  stipulations,  is  now  heard  for  the  first  time,  so 
far  as  I  know,  and  so  says  Mr.  Buchanan;  and 
this  very  circumstance  is  a  strong  presumption, 
unfavorable  to  the  assumption,  especially  consid 
ering  the  investigations  the  treaty  hud  uudcrgoire, 
and  the  many  minds  that  had  been  at  work  upon 
it.  Mr.  Buchanan  takes  up  thjs  point,  and  dis 
cusses  it  with  great  force  and  clearness.  Before 
the  treaty  was  ratified,  there  was  an  act  of  the 
British  Government,  which  is  conclusive,  as  to 
their  opinion  upon  this  pretension.  The  treaty 
went  to  England,  without  any  declaration,  except 
ing  the  Honduras  settlement  from  its  operation. 
If  the  construction  now  contended  for,  under  the 
term  prospective  operation,  be  the  correct  one, 
there  \. 

of  that  settlement, 
British  at  that  time,  it  would  not  be  affected  by 


no  need  of  providing  for  the  exclusion 
ttlement;  because,  being  held  by  the 


pretation  of  the  treaty,  and  the  subterfuges — I  us 

the  term  advisedly — by  which  it  is  sought  to  avoi 

its  obligations.     And  I  express  my  full  concui  . 

rcnce  in  the  various  points  taken  by  the  Senator  il  and  required  an  express  declaration,  that  it  did 

from  Delaware,  and  which  he  has  supported  with  i  not  extend  to  their  possessions— a  demand  utterly 

that  power  of  intellect  and  eloquence,  which  is  i|  inconsistent  with  this  newly-discovered  intorpre- 

known  to  the  whole  country,  and  wkh  a  full  jj  tation,  that,  being  prospective,  existing  claims  are 

knowledge  of  the  subject,  directed  by  an  active  I1  - A  *"*~  r*"  — ™"">- 

and  enlightened  patriotism. 

I  have  said,  that  the  object  of  this  treaty  was  to  j 
keep  the  country  from  the  occupation  or  influence 
of  the  two  parties.  So  far  as  respects  us,  the  j 
object  has  been  accomplished;  and  the  proof  of  that  \ 
fact  *s,  that  no  complaint  of  a  failure  has  been  pre-  ! 
ferred  against  us  by  our  co-contractor.  We  have  j 
not  a  foot  of  land  in  that  region,  nor  the  slightest  j 
influence,  except  what  results  from  a  fair  course  i 
of  policy;  and  we  are  disqualified  from  ever! 

making  an  acquisition  in  that  quarter.     Not  so  |  —  ~L 

wUh  England?    The  advantage  is  altogether  on  i  sufficiently  indicative  of  the  opinion,  that  all  other 
her  side."   She  retains  all  she  "claimed,  while  we  II  portions  of  Central  America  came  within  the 


the  arrangement. 

But  the  British  Government  returned  the  treaty, 


LcsLiiJiij  i/icuiua 

protected  from  its  provisions.  And  such,  too, 
was  the  view  of  the  dueen's  Advocate,  in  tha 
opinion,  to  which  I  have  already  referred,  who 
said,  that  the  Assumption,  which  he  understood 
had  been  maintained,  that  Great  Britain  had 
abandoned  all  dominion  over  the  whole  of  Central 
America,  was  incorrect,  at  least  in  regard  to  the 
Belize  and  its  dependencies.  The  Belize  and  its 
dependencies  were,  as  the  dueen's  Advocate  says, 
expressly  excluded  from  the  treaty  by  a  declara 
tion,  accompanying  the  act  of  ratification;  and  the 
least  as  regards  the  Belize, "is. 


expresson"  at 


11 


treaty,  and  are  not  protected  by  this  prospective 
discovery,  operating  upon  existing  claims.  And 
Lord  Clarendon  himself,  in  his  letter  to  Mr. 
Crampton,  of  May  27,  1853,  places  the  exemp 
tion  of  the  British  possessions — meaning  the  Be 
lize — upon  the  declaration  of  the  riegotititors,  and 
not  upon  this  recently -announced  and  prudential 
canon  of  interpretation. 

What  is  the  language  of  the  treaty  upon  this 
subject?  That  the  parties  shall  not  occupy  Cen- 
tral  America.  How  can  this  stipulation  be  com 
plied  with,  if  one  of  them  continues  the  occupa 
tion  previously  held?  To  occupy  is  to  do  just 
what  the  treaty  prohibits.  And  what  reason  is 
given  for  this  perversion  of  language,  as  plain  as 
words  permit?  "  Because,"  says  Lord  Claren 
don,  "  the  treaty  does  not  contain,  in  specific 
terras,  a  renunciation  on  the  part  of  Great  Brit 
ain."  And  in  what  principle  of  international 
law,  or  of  common  sense,  or  of  common  hon 
esty,  does  Lord  Clarendon  find  his  justification 
for  such  an  assumption  as  this  ?  I  know  of  none. 
If  a  nation,  or  an  individual,  contracts,  to  do  an 
act,  they  contract  the  obligation  to  do  all  that  that 
act  fairly  requires.  A  stipulation  not  to  occupy 
necessarily  includes  within  itself  the  duty  of  aban 
doning  any  pretension  or  possession,  inconsistent 
that  obligation.  And  if  one  individual  con 


tract  with  another,  that  he  will  hold  no  posses 
sion  in  a  given  district, — and  that  is  the  equiva 
lent  expression  in  a  private  case  for  a  national 
stipulation  of  non-occuplation,  as  no  nation  can 
retain  a  country  without  occupation,— -such  indi 
vidual  would  forfeit  all  claim  to  honesty,  if  he 
urged,  as  a  reason  for  holding  possession,  that  he 
meant  he  would  not  hold  what  he  had  not,  but 
that  what  he  had  he  would  keep.  Apply  the  same 
considerations  to  the  position  of  England,  and 
the  discussion  terminates  itself. 

3.  The  third  article  in  our  list  of  grievances  is,  the 
indefinite  extension  of  the  Belize  settlement,  antl 
the  exercise  of  full,  unlimited  jurisdictton  over  it. 

This  branch  of  the  subject  has  been  so  fully 
presented  both  here,  and  by  Mr.  Buchanan  in 
England,  and  with  marked  ability,  that  I  shall 
pass  AVer  it,  as  rapidly  as  is  consistent  with  its  , 
clear  understanding. 

The  British  Government  has,  for  a  century  j 
and  a  half,  held  qualified  possession  of  a  small 
region,  including  the  neighborhood  of  the  Belize. , 
It  was  originally  seized  for  the  purpose  of  cutting  j 
logwood;  and  after  long  and  angry  contests  with  j 
Spain,  the  latter  Power  finally  recognized  the 
right  to  hold  it  for  that  object  alone.  So  jealous 
was  the  Spanish  Government,  that  it  insisted  j 
upon  the  most  stringent  provisions;  that  thei-e 
should  be  no  armed  force,  no  fortress,  no  agricul 
ture;  expressly  providing,  that  the  natural  fruits 
of  the  soil  should  be  its  only  produce,  to  be  used 
as  food,  and  that  there  should  be  no  manufac 
tories,  but  mills  for  sawing  the  mahogany  into 
boards.  And  there  are  two  acts  of  the  British 


of  Great  Britain  over  that  region  are  wholly  dis 
regarded,  and  she  has  fortified  it,  and  cultivates  it, 
and.  exercises  as  full  dominion  over  it,  as  over  any 
other  part  of  her  territories.  She  does  not  merely 
hold  the  usufruct— and  that  confined  to  the  log 
wood  trade — but  the  country  is  exclusively  hers, 
for  all  the  purposes  of  peace  and  war.  It  is  a  per 
manent  position  on  the  great  Bay  of  Honduras. 

And  besides  this  change  of  tenure,  and  the  con 
version  of  a  limited  right  into  an  absolute  proprie 
torship,  Great  Britain  has  greatly  enlarged  the 
extent  of  the  settlement  beyond  the  boundaries 
assigned  to  it,  to  the  injury  of  the  State  of  Gua 
temala,  to  which  the  invaded  country  belongs,  as 
successor  to  the  rights  and  possessions  of  Spain. 
The  most  remote  southern  limit  of  this  settle 
ment,  ever  recognized  by  Spain,  was  the  Siboon 
river,  I  suppose  twelve  or  fourteen  miles  from  the 
Belize;  but  the  British  have  extended  it  to  the  Sar- 
stoon  river,  one  hundred  and  fifty  or  two  hundred 
miles  still  further  south,  and  as  clearty  in  the  State 
of  Guatemala  as  the  James  river  is  in  Virginia. 
Some  maps  represent  her  encroachments  as  having 
reached  the  Golfo  Dolce,  still  further  down  the 
coast. 

And  this  progressive  invasion  has  been  commit 
ted,  without  the  slightest  title  of  right  or  author 
ity — committed  by" the  strong  hand,  and  main 
tained  by  it.  Lord  Clarendon,  in  his  discussion 
with  Mr.  Buchanan,  claims  this  region  "  by  right 
of  conquest."  But  when  it  was  conquered,  and 
when  ceded,  he  fails  to  tell  us.  The  fact  is,  it 
has  been  gained  by  successive  acts  of  encroach 
ment,  sometimes  individual  and  sometimes  colo 
nial,  of  which,  till  now,  the  British  Government 
has  not  publicly  claimed  the  benefit.  These, 
now,  constitute  this  "right  of  conquest."  I  have 


charge   delivered,  not  long 


Parliament,  passed  in  1817  and,  1819, 

•  * •  *    -  i"      r         i 


confirming 

and  recognizing  this  very  limited  jurisdiction. 
They  declared  that  the  settlement  at'  the  Bay  of 
Honduras  was  "  a  settlement  for  certain  purposes, 
in  the  possession,  and  under  the  protection,  of  his 
Majesty,  but  not  within  the  territory  and  domin 
ions  of  his  Majesty,"  &c. 
Now,  sir,  all  these  limitations  upon  the  power 


before  me  a  charge  delivered,  not  long  since, 
by  Chief  Justice  Temple,  to  a  grand  jury  at  the 
Belize.  He  seemed  to  consider  it  necessary  to 
explain  by  what  right  the  authorities  exercised 
jurisdiction  over  the  country  between  the  Siboon 
and  the  Sarstoon  rivers;  and  said  "  it  was  neither 
by  grant  nor  conquest,  but  by  occupation." 
Occupation  is  a  title  resting  upon  discovery,  and 
is  applied  to  a  region,  which  had  belonged  to 
Spain,  or  her  emancipated  colony,  since  the  second 
voyage  of  Columbus.  Doctors  often  disagree  as 
j  to  a  cure  for  the  patient,  but  seldom  more  point 
edly  than  in  this  case. 

4.  We  object  to  the  occupation  of  Roatan,and 
the  cluster  of  islands  in  its  neighborhood,  in  the 
Bay  of  Honduras,  and  consider  it  a  palpable 
violation  of  the  treaty.  And  in  the  very  face  of 
that  treaty,  and  after  its  ratification,  a  colonial 
Government  was  established  there,  called  the 
Colony  of  the  Bay  Islands,  in  contempt  of  the 
stipulation,  that  neither  party  should  colonize. 

What  are  the  facts  in  relation  to  this  aggres 
sion — for  it  is  undeniably  such — and  what  are  the 
objections  to  the  claim? 

1.  Roatan  is  said  by  Lord  Clarendon  to  be  one 
of  the  group  of  islands  excepted  in  the  note  to 
the  treaty,  and  described  as  "  the  small  islands 
in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Belize  settlement,  and  ' 
known  as  its  dependencies."  Now,  there  is 
a  cluster  of  islands — islets,  rather — about  three 
leagues  from  the  Siboon  river,  which  are  depend 
encies  of  the  Belize,  and  are  beyond  all  doubt  the 
objects  of  this  provision  in  the  note;  while  Roatan 


12 


is  a  large,  important  island,  four  or  five  hundred 
miles  from  the  Belize.  A  cause  must  be  weak,  in 
deed,  which  depends  upon  such  support.  Roatan 
is  only  some  thirty  miles  from  the  coast  of  Hon 
duras,  and  belongs  to  it  by  as  just  a  title,  as  Long 
Island  belongs  to  New  York. 

2.  Anotherground  of  claim  to  Roatan  is  founded 
on  the  allegation,  that  by  some  maps  it  is  in  the 
West  Indies.     I  do  not  see,  that  Lord  Clarendon 
has  assumed  this  position,  but  others  have.     I 
state  it  only  to  show,  that  if  a  political  measure 
is  determined  on,  reasons  will  never  be  wanting 
for  its  defense.   This  geographical  elasticity,  if  it 
goes  on,  may  rob  us  of  our  good  old  island  of 
Nantuckct,  making  it  tropical  for  British  pur 
poses,  though  not  for  those  of  nature. 

3.  One  of  the  British-^  titles  to  Roatan  is  a  title 
by  right  of  occupation;  and  it  is  thus  stated  by 
Lord  Clarendon: 

"  Whenever  Roatan  has  been  permanently  occupied, 
either  in  remote  or  recent  Times,  by  anything  more  than  a 
military  iruard  and  flagstaff,  the  occupation  has  been  by 
Uritish  subjects." 

How  cautiously  is  this  worded,  as  the  foxmda- 
tion  of  such  a  claim !  When  the  island  has  been 
occupied,  formerly  or  latterly,  it  has  been  by  Brit 
ish  subjects !  Then,  according  to  this  statement, 
the  occupation  has  been  interrupted,  and  no  per 
manent  possession  held  until  the  English  seized 
it;  and  yet  a  Central  American  garrison  is  con 
ceded  to  have  been  stationed  there;  and  we  know 
that  the  island  was  wrested  from  it  by  force. 

But  still  more  extraordinary  is  the  succeeding 
declaration: 

"  It  has  been,  without  the  instigation  of  the  British  Gov 
ernment,  of  late  years,  spontaneously  occupied  by  British 
subjects." 

Spontaneous  occupation  is  a  new  title  in  Eng 
lish  colonial  history.  Had  the  British  Govern 
ment  the  slightest  faith  in  its  title,  there  would 
have  been  no  spontaneous  action, but  an  authorized 
possession  of  one  of  the  most  important  positions 
in  Central  America.  English  subjects,  according 
to  an  English  Minister,  seized  a  district  belonging, 
by  all  the  recognized  principles  of  discovery,  to 
Spain  and  her  emancipated  colonies,  and  the  Gov 
ernment  steps  in  and  takes  advantage  of  the  illegal 
act.  Apply  such  a  case  to  us,  and  what  horror 
would  be  excited  in  England  ?  What  would  she 
say  if  we  permitted  our  citizens  to  wander  through 
the  world,  occupying  regions  at  their  pleasure, 
where  they  could  gain  foothold,  and  then  should 
step  in  and  convert  their  spontaneous  occupation 
into  our  sovereignty?  and  especially  should  we 


do  so  at  this  time  in  Central  Ai 


In  such 


an  event,  language  would  fail  me  to  describe  her 
virtuous  indignation. 

But  what  are  the  prominent  facts  connected 
with  this  occupation?  In  brief,  they  are  these: 
In  the  year  1804,  Colonel  Henderson,  the  British 
commandant  at  the  Belize,  who  was  sent  to 
examine  this  island,  reported  that  it  belonged  to 
Spain.  In  1820,  it  was  seized  by  a  British  force, 
and  abandoned  on  the  remonstrances  of  the  Cen 
tral  American  Government,  which  was  then  united 
and  strong.  In  1841,  it  was  again  seized  after 
that  Government  was  dissolved,  and  when  Hon 
duras  was  feeble,  and  in  a  time  of  profound  peace , 
without  urging  the  slightest  pretense,  so  far  as 
appears:  a  mere  act  of  piracy,  to  call  things  by 
their  true  names. 


These  five-Islands,  as  I  have  already  said,  now 
constitute  a  British  colony,  organized  since  the 
ratification  of  this  treaty.  They  are  a  most  val 
uable  possession,  the  principal  of  them,  Roatan, 
being  a  highly  important  naval  station,  abound 
ing  with  excellent  harbors,  easily  fortified,  and 
affording  the  means  of  commanding  the  great  Bay 
of  Honduras,  and  the  communication  along  the 
coast  of  Central  America.  And  their  adaptation 
to  these  purposes  constitutes  at  once  their  value 
to  England,  and  the  motive  for  the  tenacity,  with 
which  she  holds  on  to  them, her  solemn  stipula 
tions  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  I  am  glad 
to  sec,  that  the  purpose  has  not  escaped  the  saga 
city  of  our  Government,  nor  the  knowledge  of  it, 
its  avowal.  Mr.  Marcy  speaks  upon  this  subject 
with  a  frankness,  which  becomes  his  position  and 
responsibility.  He  says,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Bu 
chanan  of  June  12,  1854: 

;  Roatan  can  only  be  desirable  to  Great  Britain  as  a  naval 
and  military  station,  and  for  that  purpose  only,  as  it  would 
gi\v  her  great  facility  in  affecting  injuriously  our  interests. 
Should  she  refuse  to  acknowledge  it  as  a  part  of  the  Stata 
of  Honduras,  and  retain  possession  of  it  herself,  the  United 
States  would  clearly  understand  her  object.  A  predeterm 
ination  to  interfere  with  our  affairs  thus  manifested,  will 
render  the  continuance  of  our  amicable  relations  with  her 
precarious." 

Roatan  is  to  become  the  Gibraltar  of  those  seas, 
and,  like  that  celebrated  fortress,  like  the  Capo 
of  Good  Hope,  and  Aden,  and  Singapore,  it  is 
destined  by  English  policy  to  overlook,  and, 
when  the  time  comes,  tg  control  the  commerce  of 
the  world.  No  man  can  fail  to  admire  the  judg 
ment  and  precaution  with  which  these  and  other 
stations  have  been  selected,  girding  the  globe  with 
seats  of  power — places,  at  once,  of  attack  and 
refuge — and  especially  their  establishment  upon 
great  lines  of  communication,  and  where  the  flag 
of  every  maritime  nation  must  pass  before  their 
doors.  No  Power  is  more  interested  in  all  this 
than  we  are;  and  that  interest  is  tenfold  increased 
by  our  acquisitions  upon  the  Pacific,  and  by  the 
necessity  of  an  unbroken  communication  with 
them.  We  want  no  lion  in  our  path,  watching, 
in  his  lair,  till  he  is  ready  to  spring;  but  this  is 
just  what  England  wants,  ay,  and  will  l^ve,  if 
we  do  not  bring  both  vigilance  and  firmness  to 
the  task  before  us. 

5.  Our  fifth  and  last  principal  ground  of  com 
plaint  is  the  conduct  and  pretensions  of  England 
with  respect  to  the  Mosquito  country  and  pro 
tectorate.  The  treaty  recognizes  the  existence 
of  no  such  relation  with  that  region.  This  is  con 
ceded  by  Lord  Clarendon,  who  adds,  however, 
that  the  treaty  does  recognize  the  right  of  both 
the  United  States  and  England  to  afford  protection 
to  the  Central  American  States,  including  Mos 
quito.  This  phraseology  is  too  indeterminate. 
The  allusion  in  the  convention  to  this  important 
matter  is  a  mere  incidental  one.  It  is,  that  neither 
party  shall  make  use  of  any  protection  it  may 
afford  to  either  of  the  said  States,  for  any  pur 
pose  inconsistent  with  the  treaty.  I  think  now, 
as  I  thought  at  first,  that  the  introduction  of  this 
provision  was  unfortunate;  and  I  should  feel 
obliged  to  the  Senator  from  Vermont,  [Mr.  COL- 
LAMER,]  who  was  a  member  of  General  Taylor's 
Cabinet,  at  the  time  this  subject  was  pending, 
if  he  will  state  to  the  Senate  the  reasons  for  iti 
introduction. 


13 


[Here  Mr.  COL  LAMER  stated,  that,  owing 
to  his  peculiar  aversion  to  war,  as  a  means  of  ad 
justing  national  controversies,  and  seeing  that  an 
endeavor  was  to  be  made  by  this  treaty  to  "  guar 
anty  the  neutrality  of  some  part  of  God's  earth, 
in  peace  and  war,  he  felt  particularly  interested 
in  the  subject,"  and  therefore  turned  his  attention 
to  the  negotiations. 

He  further  stated,  that  the*  first  projSt  of  the 
treaty  contained  no  stipulation  as  to  protection. 
In  considering  the  matter  in  the  Cabinet,  such  a 
clause  was  deemed  necessary,  in  consequence  of 
the  disclaimer,  made  by  Lord  Palmcrston  to  Mr. 
Lawrence,  of  any  intention  to  occupy  the  Mos 
quito  country,  though  "  at  that  very  time  (said 
Mr.  C.)  they  were  occupying  the  whole  extent 
of  country  which  I  have  mentioned. 

"  It  will  thus  be  seen  (continued  Mr.  C.)  that 
Great  Britain  told  us  she  did  not  intend  to  occupy 
or  colonize  any  part  of  Central  America,  when 
she  was  actually  occupying  it,"  &c.  It  was, 
therefore,  feared,  looking  to  the  British  connec 
tion  with  the  Mosquitoes  for  two  hundred  years, 
that,  if  some  such  provision  were  not  made,  Great 
Britain  "  might  fall  back  on  the  word  '  occupy,' 
and  might  really  occupy  the  country  under  the 
pretense  of  not  doing  so  in  her  own  right."  A 
man  may  occupy  land  in  his  own  right,  or  in  the 
right  and  as  tenant  of  another.  "  It  was  for  the 
purpose  of  putting  an  abnegation  of  the  resort 
to  any  such  pretense,  that  the  last  words  of  the 
first  article,  relating  to  protection,  were  inscribed 
in  the  treaty."] 

Mr.  CASS.  Mr.  President,  I  tender  my  ac 
knowledgments  to  the  honorable  Senator  for  his 
clear  exposition,  which  satisfactorily  shows  the 
reasons,  that  influenced  the  Cabinet  of  General 
Taylor  in  this  transaction.  That  explanation 
presents  the  subject  in  an  aspect,  which  is  new  to 
me,  and  certainly  suggests  better  reasons  for  the 
adoption  of  this  course,  than  I  had  anticipated, 
though  I  still  think  the  treaty  would  have  been 
safer  without  thi.s  clause. 

I  appreciate  the  reluctance  of  the  Senator  to  de 
bate  this  subject.  It  is  no  pleasant  task.  As  he 
well  intimates,  it  demands  strong  reprobation,  in 
strong  language.  I  believe  I  have  not,  certainly 
I  have  not  intended,  toemploy  expressions,  which 
do  not  fairly  belong*to  the  circumstances.  I  rec 
ollect,  some  years  since,  that  Lord  John  Russell, 
in  the  British  House  of  Commons,  called  Mr. 
Folk's  Oregon  message  a  "  blustering  display" — 
I  think  that  was  the  term.  His  lordship's  dis 
play  was  an  unfortunate  one,  for  there  was  noth 
ing  to  warrant  the  aspersion.  But  there  are  pre 
tensions  so  grossly  unjust,  that  no  mild  epithets 
befit  their  character.  One  of  these  we  are  dealing 
with  to-day. 

Lord  Clarendon,  in  a  dispatch  to  Mr.  Cramp- 
ton,  connects  the  Mosquito  protectorate  with  the 
honor  of  England,  and  distinctly  avows  that  he 
has  no  intention  to  abandon  it.  He,  indeed,  tells 
Mr.  Buchanan  that  the  Government  "  did  intend 
to  reduce  and  limit  that  right."  Mr.  Buchanan's 
retort  is  a  very  happy  one.  He  intimates  that 
some  proof  of  this  design,  more  substantial  than 
the  mere  declaration,  might  remove  this  subject 
from  the  controversy.  It  is  not  denied,  on  the 
part  of  England,  that  it  must  be  exercised  with 


out  bringing  with  it  occupation,  or  fortification, 
or  colonization,  or  dominion. 

Now,  sir,  what  is  this  protectorate,  which  can 
not  be  abandoned  without  leaving  a  dishonorable 
stain  upon  the  English  escutcheon  ?  How  has 
it  been  exercised,  and  what  good  has  it  done ?  I 
need  not  go  over  the  historical  narrative,  showing 
the  unjustifiable  progress  of  this  assumption  of 
supremacy  over  these  Indians.  The  story  ha^s 
been  often  told,  and  the  interference  itself  has 
been  the  principal  cause  of  more  than  one  war 
between  Spain  and  England.  It  reduced  these 
Indians,  or — if  it  has  not  actually  done  that — it 
has  aided  in  reducing  them  from  a  numerous  band 
of  high-spirited  aborigines  to  a  miserable  rem 
nant  of  a  few  hundreds — I  believe  not  more  than 
five  hundred  north  of  the  San  Juan — and  the  de 
cadence  has  not  been  less  rapid  or  visible  in  their 
moral  and  physical  condition,  than  in  their  power 
and  numbers.  All  accounts  represent  them  as  in 
the  lowest  state  of  wretchedness.,  "  Degraded," 
as  Mr.tBuchahah  says,  "  even  below  the  common 
Indian  standard" — they  can  hardly  sink  lower. 
And  the  contemptible  exhibition  of  King  crown 
ing  lias  been  enacted  at  Jamaica,  as  well  as  in  the 
Mosquito  country,  by  British  officers  of  the  high 
est  authority;  and  the  head  of  a  drunken  savage 
chief  has  been  encircled  with  a  tinsel  royal  dia 
dem,  and  he  has  been  hailed  as  one  of  the  sov 
ereigns  of  the  earth.  And  the  title  is  in  happy 

I  coincidence  with  the  farce,  and  must  have  sounded 
uphoniously  to  English  ears,  when  the  trumpets 

I  blew — and  I  suppose  they  did,  as  in  the  olden 
time — and  the  people  cried,  GOD  SAVE  THE  KING 
OF  THE  MOSQUITOES  ! 

Lord  Palmcrston  seems  to  have  held  a  very 
different  estimate  of  the  powers  of  this  monarch, 
and  of  the  condition  of  his  monarchy,  at  different 
times,  or,  at  any  rate,  to  have  avowed  one.  He 
said,  in  a  letter  dated  July  16,  1849,  to  the  Min 
ister  of  Nkaragua,  that  "  the  King  of  the  Mos 
quitoes  had,  from  an  early  period  of  history,  been 
the  independent  (!)  ruler  of  a  separate  territory." 
"  E  converso,"  he  said  to  Mr.  Rives,  "  they  have 
what  is  called  a  King,  but  who,  by-the-by,  is  as 
much  a  King  as  you  or  I."  What  a  jewel  is 
consistency  !  Lord  John  Russell  and  Lord  Palm- 
erston  both  denominated  this  pretension  a  fiction. 
It  is  so,  and  a  gross  one,  too.  I  might,  indeed, 
characterize  it  by  a  stronger  epithet.  But,  like 
other  members  of  the  same  imaginative  family,  it 
is  undergoing  a  metamorphosis  which  is  rapidly 
converting  it  into  grave  fact,  which,  if  not  now 
met  and  resisted,  will  mark  its  place  in  history 
as  having  exercised  a  controlling  influence  upon 
the  fate  of  those  wide-spread  regions.  The  world 
is  looking  on,  and  doubtless  with  interest  watch 
ing  the  course  of  the  disputants,  and,  regarding 
the  cause  of  the  struggle  as  an  experiment,  won 
dering  whether  British  presumption  or  American 
forbearance  can  be  carried  furthest  or  continued 
longest.  While  a  British  Secretary  of  State  is 
lending  his  sanction  to  such  an  unworthy  trans 
action,  referring  to  the  anointing  process  as  one 
of  the  foundations  of  the  British  claim,  in  a  com 
munication  with  an  American  representative. 
Lord  Clarendon  calls  the  present  chief  "  a  decent, 
well-behaved  youth."  He  may  be  so;  but  if  ha 
is,  he  does  not  derive  his  virtues,  as  he  does  hi: 
realm,  from  hereditary  descent,  for  Lord  Claren- 


14 


don  further  says:  "  his  late  Majesty,  his  father,     worth  the  while  longer  to  keep  up  the  shallow  disguise  of 
was  a  bad  fellow. "  He  was  a  worthless,  drunken     '  Mosquito  authority.'  » 
savage;  all  accounts  agree  in  that.    Lord  Claren 
don  "said,   inadvertently  I    should   think,   with 
purposed  frankness  it  may  be,  that  the  present 
monarch  lives  in  the  family  of  Mr.  Green,  the 
consul,  denying  at  the  same  lime  the  exercise  of 
any  British  power  over  the  region  by  means  of 


the   royal  protege.      He  adds,  however,  "  that 


This  will  be  found  on  the  135th  page  of  Exec 
utive  Document,  No.  75,  of  the  first  session  of 
the  Thirty-First  Conuv 

Mr.  SUMNER.  What  is  the  date  of  the  letter? 
Mr.  CLAYTON.     July  10,  1849.     Ag.ihi:  on 
page  138  of  the  same  document,  there  is  a 
men  of  one  of  these  grants,  signed  by  her  Eritan- 

the  consul  may~be  often  called  upon  to  give  his  ji  nic  Majesty's  vice  consul,  James  Green;    and  a 
advice  or  opinion  to  the  Mosquito  Government."  ||  statement  of  sums  of  money  paid  for  a 


survey 


Well,  sir,  this  is  cool,  if  not  satisfactory.   And  !|  of  the  land  by  Robert  Woods,  surveyor,  an  Eng- 
has  Lord  Clarendon  so  low  an  estimate  of  man-  illishman.     Mr.  Marcy  instructs  Mr.  Bu 
kind,  as  to  suppose  that  a  single  man,  either  in  |j  that  there  is  really  no  Mosquito  Government.    It 
his  country  or  in  ours,  can  be  found,  who  can  be  j 
deceived  by  such  representations?     It  is  making  ' 
a  liuivy  demand  upon  human  credulity.     Here 
is  an  immense  extent  of  sea-coast — more  than 


is  as  he  says,  merely  a  British  Govrnn 

Mr.  CASS.  Now,  sir,  I  have  neither  time  nor 
patience  to  examine  and  expose  this  ground,  as 
sumed  by  Lord  Clarendon.  That  the  wh<il<>  of 

five  hundred  miles— held  by  the  British  Govern-  j  the  Mosquito  country  is  just  as  much  under  the 
ment,  upon  this  weakest  of  all  pretenses.     Thus  ]  subjection  of  England,  as  the  Island  of  Jr,-. 
held  to-day,  but  to  be  held  to-morrow  in  full  sov- j  is  as  obvious,  as  the  most  palpable  fact  which  is 
ereignty  by  the  right  of  possession,  andfif  need  j  now  passing  before  the  world. 
be,  by  the  application  of  power.     And  all  this,        A  few  days  ago,  sir,  when  this  subject  wa3 
while  the  wax  is  hardly  dry  upon  a  treaty,  whose  I  before  the  Senate,  I  recalled  somp  reminiscences 
.0  spirit  is  incompatible  with  even  the  exercise  j  connected  with  English  philanthropic  pro:'- 


whole  spirit  is  incompa 

of  influence  for  political  purposes  by  one  t 

which  might,  as  I  have  already  said,  injuriously 


party, 
lously 


!V_'V/lIiI-    V^LL-U.     VVitJ.1    J-UI  I^IiCil    [7iillC4il  till  UkUO    1. 1 1  UiCtioiU  lift 
of  regard   for   the  Indians,  of  which   we   have 
j  heard  so  much  in  this  country;  an;l  upon  that 


aff.-ct  the  other  in  that  magnificent  region.  I  occasion,  I  appealed  to  the  honorable  Senator 

But,  after  all,  Lord  Clarendon  makes  the  follow-    from  Kentucky  [Mr.  CRITTENDEN]  as  a  v. 
ing  striking  admission— and  a  strange  one  it  is,  I!  of  the  truth  of  my  assertions.     I  renew  the  ap- 
considering  his  general  propositions  and  preten-    peal  to-day,  because  I  know  him  to  be  a  coinpe- 
sions.     He  says,  though  Great  Britain  never  held  !  tent  one,  both  traditional  and  personal ;  for  having 
possession   of   the   Mosquito   coast,   yet   "she  1 


undoubtedly  exercises  a  great  and  powerful  in 
fluence  over  it  as  protector  of  the  Musquito 
king."  Who  knows,  but  that  this  relation  may 
hereafter  assume  a  position  in  the  English  heraldic 
college,  and  as  the  sovereign  is  the  DEFENDER  OF 
THE  FAITH,  the  protectorship  of  the  Musquitoes 
may  take  its  place  alongside  the  boasted  motto  of 
the  pious  Henry  VIII. 

I  desire  to  ask  the  honorable  Senator  from  Del 
aware,  if  this  professed  abstinence  from  interfer 
ence  has  been  observed,  and  whether  the  British 
consul  has  not  issued  grants  of  land,  without  ref 
erence  to  the  authority  of  the  Mosquito  King? 


been  born  and  lived  all  his  life  on  the  DARK  AND 
BLOODY  GROUND  of  Kentucky,  as  it  was  called  by 
the  Indians,  he  early  heard  the  tales  of  horror, 
which  Indian  barbarities,  urged  on  by  British 
agents,  brought  upon  that  country;  and  I  saw 
him  stand  up  in  battle  against  a  combined  Chris 
tian  and  barbarian  army,  where  the  red  man  had 
been  subsidized  to  fight  the  warfare  of  the  white 
man.  He  knew — the  country  knows,  indeed — 
that  these  allies,  as  they  were  called  by  the  British 
commissioners  at  Ghent,  were  purchased  by  a 
lavish  distribution  of  money,  and  presents,  and 
whisky,  and  by  the  hopes  of  gaining  Indian  tro 
phies  in  the  form  of  human  scalps,  to  be  reaped 


Mr.  CLAYTON.  "  Yes,  sir-  he  undoubtedly  ;|  m  a  bloody  harvest  on  our  frontiers.     Ti- 
If  the  Senator  will  refer  to  a  letter    of  things  was  nevermore  eloquently 


has  done  so. 
of  our  Minister  in  Central  America,  of  the  10th 
day  of  July,  1849,  addressed  to  this  Government, 
he  will  see  there  that  the  Minister  states  that  fact ! 
distinctly.     He  says: 

"  Since  the  seizure  of  this  port  by  the  English,  the  muni-  J 
cipal  and  other  regulations  have  been  dictated  by  the  i'.nu- 
lish  authorities,  at  the  head  of  which  stands  her  Britannic 
Majesty's  consul  general,  Mr.    W.  D.  Christy.     He  has 
taken  up  his  residence  here,  and  assumed  the  entire  con-  | 
trol  of  alfairs.     No  written  laws  or  regulations  have  bei  ,i 
promulgated  ;  and  this  gentleman  is,  tie  facto,  a  dictator,  his  j 
will  being  the  law,  beyond  which  there  is  no  :>;>p:-nl.     He 
lias  meil--  him. "'If  extremely  obnoxious  to  the  inhabitants,  ; 
without  exception,  and  his  arbitrary  conduct  is  the  .- 
of  complaint  on  every  hand.     I! is  sole  adherents  are  half  a 
do/.  -:i  officials,  one  of  whom  is  vice  consul,  another  harbor- 
ma-KT,  others  policemen,   &c.     Although   the:   so  railed 
Mosquito  flag  is  flying,  yet,  apart  from  this,  tb.ore  seem-:  to. 
be  no  deference  to  IMosijuito  authority  on  the  pftrtof  the 
consul-general,     lie  has  taken  upon  himself  to  disregard 
all  Ica-^-s  and  grants  of  land  made  by  the  Nicaragi! 
thoritics  before  the  English  conquest,  and  a  suisies  to  sell 
t':c    nine,  not  as  the  ayent  of  the  Mosquito  King,  but  as  her 
Britamric  Majesty's  vice  consul. 

"  This  assumption  may  not  be  deemed  of  much  import 
ance,  but  it  will  tend  to  show  that  here  it  is  hardly  deemed 


or  fr 

depicted  than  by  Fisher  Ames,  in  Jan  addivw.s  in 
the  House  of  Representative^,  remarkable  in  our 
oratorical  history  for  its  beauty.  It  took  place 
during  the  administration  of  General  Washing 
ton,  on  a  resolution  that  it  was  expedient,  to  make 
appropriations  for  carrying  into  effect  the  trrnty 
with  Great  Britain.  The  consequences  of  the 
failure  to  do  so  formed  the  principal  topic  of  Mr. 
Ames's  remarks;  and  amoijg  these  the  Indian  hos 
tilities,  to  which  we  should  be  exposed  by  English 
influence  over  the  Indians,  were  the  most  promi 
nent.  His  thrilling  accents  yet  almost  ring  in 
my  cars.  The  eloquent  speaker  said: 

"  On  this  theme  my  cmoi.ums  arc  unutterable.  If  J  conld 
find  words  Cor  them,  if  my  powers  bore  any  proportion  to 
my  v.eal,  I  would  swell  my  voice  to  i-nrh  a  note  of  remon 
strance.' it  should  reach  every  log-house  beyond  the  mount 
ains.  1  would  say  to  the  inhabitants,  wake  from  your  false 
security;  your  cruel  dangers,  your  appri  soon 

to  be  renewed  !  The  wounds,  yet  unhealed,  are  to  bo  torn 
open  again,  in  the  day  time,  your  path  through  the  woods 
will  he  ambushed  ;  the  darkness  of  midnight  will  "litter 
with  the  blaze  of  your  dwellings.  You  are  a  father — the 
blood  of  your  sous  shall  fatten  jour  cora-fioids.  You  are  a 


15 


mother— the  war-hoop  sliall  wake  the  sleep  of  the  cra- 
•dle." 

I  look 'with  a  feeling  of  loathing  upon  this 
interference  of  one  civilized  nation  with  savage 
tribes  living  out  of  its  territory,  and  within  the 
dominions  of  another  Powejr.  And  the  feeling 
reaches  indignation,  when  the  measure  is  cloaked 
by  hollow  professions  of  philanthropy,  while,  in 
fact,  it  is  dictated  by  the  purposes  of  power.  Our 
experience  has  been  a  long  and  costly  one;  and  I 
do  not  believe,  that  there  has  since  been  any 
ckange  in  this  system  of  political  ethics,  which 
accelerated  the  downfall  of  our  Indians,  and 
which  is  producing  a  similar  fate  upon  the  coast 
of  Central  America.  May  our  aboriginal  inhab- 
tants  be  everywhere  delivered  from  the  protection 
of  su*i  a  protector ! 

Let  us  survey  this  matter  of  the  treaty  from 
another  point  of  view.  A  change  of  position  often 

fives  increased  interest  to  the  same  landscape, 
uppose  an  arrangement  like  this  had  been  entered 
into  between  the  French  and  English  Govern- 
Rlents,  for  the  purpose  of  securing  a  transit  across 
the  isthmus  of  Suez,  and  a  safe  communication 
through* the  Red  sea,  for  both  parties,  to  the  rich 
regions  of  eastern  Asia.  And  suppose  the  French 
Government  had  endeavored,  under  the  claim  of 


I  article.  The  object  of  this  was  still  more  especially  to  dis 
arm  the  Mosquito  protectorate  of  Great  Britain  in  "Central 
America. 

My  own  opinion  was  then,  and  it  now  is,  that  tin  >  pro 
vision  was  not  at  ail  neees.-ary.  You  thought  as  i  did  ;  but 
as  it  could  not  possibly  weaken  the  force  "or  effect  of  the 
preceding  words,  and,  if  effective  at  all,  could  only  serve  to 
render  them  more  forcible  and  operative  ;  we  did  not  object 
to  its  insertion.  If  the  former  words  prohibited,  as  they 
clearly  did  of  themselves,  the  doing  any  of  the  particular 
acts  specified,  an  express  stipulation,  that  such  acts  should 
not  be  done,  by  or  under  cover  of  protectorates  or  alliances, 
could  only  operate  still  more  effectively  and  absolutely  to 
prohibit  them.  As  one  of  the  advisers  of  the  President,  I 
|  unhesitatingly  gave  him  my  opinion,  that  the  treaty  did 
effectually,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  disarm  the  British 
I  protectorate  in  Central  America  and  the  Mosquito  coast, 
i  although  it  did  not  abolish  the  protectorate  in  terms,  nor 
j  was  it  thought  advisable  to  do  so,  "  in  ipsisttimis  vcrbis." 
All  that  flras  desired  by  us  \va?,  to  extinguish  British  domin 
ion  over  that  country,  whether  held  directly  or  indirectly — 
whether  claimed  by  Great  Britain  in  her  own  rigl't  or  in 
the  right  of  the  Indians.  But  our  Government  had  no  j 
live  and  no  desire  to  prevent  Great  Britain  f:;.m 


'  prevent  Great  Britain  fi'<-.m  performing 
any  of  the  duties  which  charity  or  compassion  for  a  fallen 
race  might  dictate  to  her,  or  to  deprive  ourselves  of  the 
power  to  interfere  to  the  same  extent  in  the  cause  of  hu 
manity.  We  never  designed  to  do  anything  which  could 
enable  the  enemies  of  this  miserable  remnant  of  Indians  to 
butcher  or  starve  them  ;  and  we  thought  that  both  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States  owed  it  to  their  high  charac 
ter  for  civilization  and  humanity,  to  interfere  so  far  in  their 
behalf  as  to  prevent  the  extirpation  of  the  race,  or  the  cx- 
j  pulsion  of  them  from  the  lands  they  occupied,  without 


protection,  and  by  means  of  money — that  key  to  j  j  extinguishing,  by  a  reasonable  Indemnity,  the  Indian  title 
the  heart  of  an  Arab— to  gain  an  ascendency  over  j  j  Joth'by1? he  En«*fohS  " 
some  of  the  Ishmaelitc  tribes  on  the  eastern  coast 
of  the  Red  sea,  with  Consuls  to  board  and  lodge  the 
chiefs,  and  to  give  "  them  advice  and  opinion" — 
those  arc  the  words — upon  all  important  affairs; ! 
I  say,  supposing  all  this,  what  would  be  the  course  I 
of  the  British  Government  ?    And  the  question 
becomes  still  more  emphatic,  if  to  these  supposi 
tions  we  join  another,  that  the  French  should  add 
insult  to  injury  by  offering  such  reasons — no,  not 
reasons,  but  such  pretexts — for  their  want  of  faith, 
«*s  arc  coolly  presented  and  ur^ed  for  our  satis 
faction  and  acquiescence.     I  will  not  pursue  the 
inquiry;  it  cannot  be  necessary.      The  answer 
may  be  read  in  the  history  of  England,  and  he 
who  seeks  it  there  can  find  it.     I  now  renew  the 
request  that  the  letter  of  Mr.  Johnson  may  be 
read . 

The  Secretary  read  the  letter,  as  follows: 

WASHINGTON,  Deccmler  3t),  1853. 

MY  DF.A.R  SIR:  1  cannot  hesitate  to  comply  with  your 


I  Dotii  oy 

I  (and  the  treaty  contains  everything  for  that  purpose  that 

1  couid  be  desired)  to  prevail t  the  British  Government  from 
using  any  armed  force,  without  our  consent,  within  thp 
prohibited  region,  under  pretext  or  cover  of  h«:r  pretended 
protectorate.  And  when  ROW  reviewing  what  was  done,  I 
say,  upon  my  responsibility  as  a  lawyer,  and  u*  the  le»al 
adviser  of  the  President  at  the  time,  that,  in  uw  judgment, 
human  language  could  not  be  more  properly  and  admirably 
selected  for  the  purpose,  than  that  which  you  employed 
when  you  signed  the  treaty. 

It  has  been  said,  but  I  can  hardly  accredit  it,  that  Great 
Britain  now  contends,  in  virtue  of  the  phraseology  of  the  , 
last  part  of  the  first  article,  incidentally  speaking  of  the 
protection  which  either  party  may  use,  that  the  treaty  ac- 

i  knowledges  the  protectorate  over  the  Indians.  If  so,  it 
|  j  equally  acknowledges  our  protectorate  over  the  same  In 
dians,  or  over  Nicaragua,  or  any  State  which  we  may 
choose  to  protect.  The  same  words  apply  to  both  parties, 
and  it  is  a  bad  rule  that  docs  not  work  equally  for  both.  The 
moment  Great  Britain  threatens,  with  arms,"  to  defend  tha 
Indians,  and  claims  a  right  to  do  so  in  virtue  of  the  treaty, 
we  may  claim,  by  the  same  instrument,  with  equal  justice, 
the  right  to  take  arms  in  defense  of  Honduras  and  Nicar- 

j  agua.  But,  in  my  judgment,  the  treaty,  which  was  meant 
for  peaceful  purposes,  denies  both  to  Great  Britain  and  the 


rrquot,  to  give  you  ray  opinion  oh  the  construction  of  the  j  |  United  States  tha  right  to  interfere,  by  force  of  amis  for 
treaty  of  Washington,  of  the  19th  of  April,  1850.    Pending  '  I  any  such  purpose,  or  for  any  other  purposes,  except  by  mu- 
Uie  negotiation  of  this  treaty,  I  exerted  myself,  in  personal    !  tunl  consent.     If  Great  Britain  may  send  an  army  in 
with  Si*  Henry  L.  Bulwer,  to  bring  about  an  !  i  Nicaragua  to  defend  the  Indians  without  violating  the  treaty. 
•twflfin  vnn  ami  him  :  ami.  nn  BPVP™I  .ironon™   i   which  binds  her  not  to  occupy  that  country,  th«n,  by  the 

same  rule  of  construction,  she  may  also  foVtiiy  the  whole 
of  Central  America,  or  introduce  a  colony  there  under  the 
same  pretext.  Anv  adverse  possession  of  Great  Britain  in 
Central  America,  without  our  consent, is  an  occupation  in 
violation  of  her  national  faith.  The  construction  which 
would  allow  her  to  place  an  .trine  d  soldiery  on  the  territory, 
for  the  purpose  of  protecting  the  Indians,  would  also  allow 
her  to  assume  absolute  dominion  therefor  the  same  pur- 


agreement  between  you  and  him ;  and,  on  several'oceasions, 
I  had  the  honor  to  be  consulted  by  you  both;  particularly 
in  reference  to  the  declarations  made  on  both  bides,  at  or 
about  the  time  of  the  exchange  of  ratifications. 

In  the  first  draft  of  the  first  article  of  the  treaty  presented 
oy  you  for  the  consideration  of  the  President,  the  contract-  i 
in 2  parties  were  obligated  not  "  to  occupy,  or  fortify,  or  colo-  I 
ni;;c,  or  assume  or  exorcise  any  dominion  over  Nicaragua,  I 
"•osta  Rica,  the  Mosquito  coast,  or  any  part  of  Central 


Am;-rie;i."    I  thought  then,  as  you  did,  that  these  words  ]    pose,  and  thus  annul  the  whole  treaty. 

\yyiv  ;:uhK-;entto  exclude  any  nation  disposed  to  observe]!  But  it  may  be  said  that  some  other  nation  IJIP.V  invade 

Central  America,  and  that  this  construction  would  d<  privr 
both  the  contracting  parties  of  the  power  to  defend  it.  Not 
at  all.  Both  p-irtics  have  bound  themselves  to  protect  the 
canal,  and  all  the  canals  and  all  th%  railroads  that  can  be 
made,  not  only  in  Central  Anerica,  but  in  any  part  of  the 
Isthmus  which  separates  North  from  South  America.  In 
virtue  of  this  obligation,  it  would  be  the  duty  of  both  to 
resist,  by  the  most  effective  means  in  their  power,  ail  hiva- 


rtie  faith  of  treaties  from  occupying,  fortifying,  colonizing,  j   Central  America,  and  that  this  construction  won',}  dM>ri"'p 

•  .linger  exercising  any  dominion,  under  any  pretext,  i    '— "-  *'  u  — "—   -' 
or  for  any  purpose.     I  still  think  so;  but  I  remember  well 


that  other  gentlemen,  who  were  consulted  at  the  time,  de- 
sir  ••'..(,  from  abundant  caution,  that  Great  Britain  should 
pledge  hesvelf  not  to  make  use  of  any  protection  which  she  ! 
:u:u:-,'od  or  might  afford,  or  any  alliance  which  she  had  or  i 
,7e,  to  or  with  any  State  or  people,  for  the  purpose  ! 


of  occupying,  fortifying,  or  colonizing,  or  of  assuming  or  i  sions  and  other  acts  hostile  to  their  great  and  philanthropic 
exercising  dominion  over  that  country;  and,  in  consequence,  I  common  purpose.  So,  too,  injuries  or  torts  ir-flicteVl  either 
the  provision  to  that  effect  was  introduced  as  a  part  of  that  i  by  the  Indians,  or  by  any  Central  American  State,  uuon 


16 


either  American  citizens  or  British  subjects,  may  be  pun 
ished  by  thfjr  respective  Governments  without  violating 
th  etreaty  :  and  no  one  of  these  States,  by  means  of  a  con 
vention,  which  is  marked  in  every  line  by  a  devotion  to  the 
true  principles  of  commerce,  civilization,  and  equal  justice 
to  all  men,  can  escape  punishment  for  her  injustice  or  op 
pression.  This  treaty  is  the  first  instance,  within  my  knowl 
edge,  in  which  two  great  nations  of  the  earth  have  thus 
endeavored  to  combine,  peacefully,  for  the  prosecution  and 
accomplishment  of  an  object  which,  when  completed,  must 
advance  the  happiness  and  prosperity  of  all  men;  audit 
would  he  a  matter  of  deep  regret,  if  the  philanthropic  and 
noble  objects  of  the  negotiators  should  now  be  defeated  by 
petty  cavils  and  special  pleading  on  either  side  of  the  At 
lantic. 

AK  to  the  declaration  of  Sir  Henry  L.  Bulwer,  and  the 
counter-declaration  made  by  you  at  the  time  of  the  ex 
change  of  the  ratifications,  1  probably  had  a  better  oppor 
tunity  of  understanding  the  views  and  objects  of  both  of 
you,  than  any  other.  I  assisted,  by  your  request,  in  the 
arra'n"  phraseology  of  the  counter-declaration, 

d:if<'('  the  -III:  of  .luly,  Is'/J,  to  Sir  Henry  L.  Dulwer's  dec 
laration  of  the  Sflth  of  June.     By  your  request,  also,  I  ex 
aminer!  Sir  '.',•  nry  L.  I'silwi  r's  powers,  and  conversed  with 
iml  luJly,  n;i  the  whole  subject,  at  the  wry  mo- 
laration,  you  threat 
en,  d  to  br  ;ik  off  the  whole  negotiation. 

I  remember  \vefl,  that,  after  his  declaration  w:i>  received, 
there  \va  •  ;;  perl  <!  when  you  had  resolved  to  abandon  the 
treaty  in  consequence  of  it;  but.  when  Sir  Henry  consented 
to  receive  your  counter-declaration  of  the  4th  of  July,  in 
which  you  expressly  limited  the  term,  "  Her  Majesty's  set 
tlement  at  Honduras,"  to  that  country  which  is  known  as 
British  Honduras,  as  contradistinguished  or  distinct  from 
the  State  of  Honduras,  and  also  confined  the  word  "  do- 
j»"ndfj:c:;'s"'  in  his  declaration  to  those,  "small  islands" 
hnsi'-n  at  the  time  to  be  swcA;  in  which,  also,  while  ad- 
initting  Belize,  or  British  Honduras,  not  to  be  included  in 
the  treaty,  you  disavowed  all  purpose  of  admitting  any 
Uriti-h  title  even  there;  in  which,  too,  you  declared  that 
the,  treaty  did  include  "all  the  Central  American  States 
within  tiieir  just  limits  and  proper  dependencies,"  and  in 
which  you  expressly  stated  to  him  tiiat  no  alteration  could 
be  made  in  the  treaty  without  the  consent  of  the  Senate, 
and  that  he  was  understood  as  not  even  proposing  any 
such  alteration ;  you  then  consented  to  exchange  upon 
that  counter-declaration,  Which,  in  your  judgment,  and  in 
mine,  too,  completely  annulled  every  pretext  for  a 
that  the  declarations  of  the  negotiators  had  altered  the  con 
vention,  or  fixed  an  interpretation  upon  it  contrary  to  the 
meaning  of  the  President  and  Senate.  We  both  conMd- 
ered  then,  and,  as  a  jurist,  I  now  hold  it  to  be  perfectly 
clear,  that,  the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  on  that  coun 
ter-declaration  was,  on  the  part  of  the  British  Minister,  a 
complete  waiver  of  every  objection  that  could  be  taken  to 
any  statement  contained  in  it. 

In  point  of  law,  the  declarations  of  the  negotiator?,  not 
submitted  to  the  Senate,  were  of  no  validity,  and  could  riot 
nfle.ct  the  treaty.  Both  understood  that.  Tiiis  Government 
had  decided  that  question  in  the  case  of  the  Mexican  pro 
tocol,  and  the  British  Government  was  officially  informed 
of  tiieir  decision.  The  very  power  to  exchange  ratifica 
tions  gave  tiiun  the  same  information,  and  ii  i:<  absolutely 
Impossible  that  the  British  Minister  could  have  been  de 
ceived  on  that  subject. 

I  remember  well,  that  you  steadily  refused  every  effort 
on  tin:  [Virt  of  Sir  Henry,  to  induce  you  to 
Mosquito  ti'.le.     The  treaty  left  us  at  lib 
the  l.iii:.-  of  Nicaragua,  or  any  other  Centra!  American  Staff, 
and  left  the  Krirish  Government  the  ri&t  to  recognize  the 
title  of  the  Mosquito  King.     Ou  these  points  the  parties 
agreed  to  disagree.     But  the  right    to  recognize  is  a  very 
different  affair  from  the  right  to  compel  others  to  recognize. 
The  Bruish  protrrtoraie  vras,  I  repeat,  entirely  dfc 
by  thn  treaty.     How  is  it  possible  for  Great  Britain  to  pro- 
tret,  if  sh.:  cannot  "  occupy,  or  fortify,  or  assume  any  do 
minion  whatever'*  in  any  part  of  the  territory?     She  i* 


equally  prohibited,  in  my  opinion,  from  occupying  for  the 
purpose  of  protection,  or  protecting  for  the  purpose  of  oc 
cupation,  if  she  observes  the  treaty,  her  protectorate 
"  stands"  (as  you  once  well  said  of  it,  in  a  diplomatic 
note)  "the  shadow  of  a  name." 

With  rerrard  to  the  British  colony  said  to  have  been  estab 
lished  on  the  17th  of  July,  18.V3,  in  the  islands  of  iJ.oatun, 
Bonacca,  Utilla,  Barbarat,  Helena,  and  Morat,  and  i 
nated  as  the  colony  of  the  Bay  of  Islands,  the  qe 
whether,  by  establishing  such  a  colony,  Great  Britain  has 
violated  the  treaty  of  1850,  depends  entirely  upon  facts,  in 
retrnrd  to  which  there  are  different  opinions.    The  only 
islands  known  to  this  Government  on  the  4th  of  July.  U.~>U, 
to  be  dependencies  of  Bi-iiish  Honduras  or  Belize,  were 

a  to  in  the  fouthand  fifth  articles  of  the  treaty  ot'Loin- 
don,ofthe  llth  of  July,  1786.  The  fourth  article  provides  tiiat 
"the  r,n«ilish  shall  he  permitted  To  occupy  the  smail  i.-Jand 
known  by  the  names  of  Camilla,  St.  George's  Key,  or  Cayo 
Cafina,"  and  by  the  fifth  article,  they  "have  the  liberty  of 
refitting  their  merchant  ships  in  the  southern  triaugle  in 
cluded  between  the  point  of  Cayo  Cafina  and  the  cluster  b/" 
small  islands  which  are  situated  opposite  that  part  of  tha 
coast  occupied  by  the  cutters,  at  the  distance  of  eight  league? 
from  the  river  Wain's,  seven  from  Cayo  Cafina,  and  three 
from  the  river  Sibun,  a  place  which  has  always  been  found 
well  adapted  for  that  purpose.  For  which  end,  the  edifice^ 
md  store-houses  absolutely  necessary  for  that  purpose  shall 
be  allowed  to  be  built." 

These  aiticl'-s  in  the  treaty  of  1786  gave  us  the  only 
knowledge  of  any  small  islands  which  were,  on  the  -Jth  o'f 
July,  1850,  "  dependencies  "  of  British  Honduras.  I  repeat, 
that  the  counter-declaration  acknowledges  no  t, ther  depend 
encies  of  British  Honduras  but  those  small  islands,  which 
were  kno'wn  to  be  such  at  its  date.  We  knew,  indeed,  that 
Great  Britain,  as  well  as  Honduras,  had  laid  claim  to  Roa- 
tan,  but  we  had  no  information  as  to  the  ground  on  which 
the  former  rested  her  claim.  Your  reply  to  Sir  Henry  L. 
Bulwcr  avoided  any  recognition  of  the  British  claim  to  it, 
or  othei-  allusion  to  it,  than  could  be  inferred  from  the  pos 
itive  assertion  that  the  treaty  did  include  all  the  Central 
American  States, "  with  their  just  limits  and  proper  dep  -ud- 
eneies."  If  these  islands  were  a  part  of  any  Central  Amer 
ican  State  at  the  time  of  the  treaty,  the  subsequent  coloni 
zation  of  them  by  Great  Britain  is  a  clear  violation  of  it. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  did  not  then  belong  to  any  Cen 
tral  American  State,  it  would  be  gross  injustice  on  our  part 
to  pretend  that  the  treaty  did  include  them.  My  impression 
is,  that  lloatan  belongs  to  the  State  of  Honduras,  but  my 
knowledge  of  the  facts  is  too  limited  to  enable  me  to  e:;presd 
it  without  diffidence.. 

During  the  Administration  of  President  Taylor,  there 
was  no  new  :i<;-,rres.-ion  by  Great  Britain  in  any  part  of  tire 
Isthmus  which  was  not  promptly  met  and  resisted.  He  hail 
firmly  resolved,  by  all  constitutional  means  in  his  power, 
to  prevent  such  agcrcssion,  if  any  should  be  attempted, 
considering,  as  he  did,  that  all  the  passages  through  the 
Isthmus  should  be  k<;pt  free,  to  enable  us  to  n-tain  our  pos 
sessions  on  the  Pacific.  I  pretend  to  know  nothing  ol"  what 
has  occurred  there  since  his  day;  but  neither  he  nor  his 
advisers  could  be  held  responsible  if  the  treaty  negotiated 
by  his  orders  has  been  at  .any  time  violated  since  hi-:  death. 

1  can  scarcely  suppose  it  possible  that  Great  Britain  in 
tends  seriously  to  interpose  her  prot'-ciorale  •^•;iii  to  uittain 
dominion  over  the  Isthmus.  I  am  assured,  thsif.  w!  • 
may  in:  contained  to  the  contrary  in  any  dispatches  emanat 
ing"  from  the  British.  Foreign  (Jllice,  of  which  rumor  speaks, 
•;  i.-  that  a  !)••••  :  '  half)  oftlia 

claim  of  the  Mosquito  King  lias  been  l.Uely   boiiui't  up  by 
.  with  the  concurrence  and  approbation 
fd  the  British  Government;  and  that  negotiations  are  on 
foot,with  a  fair  pro  ;  -=,  for  (he  purchase,  by  the 

same  persons,  of  the  residue  of  that  claim. 

I  am,  dear  sir,  sincerely  your  "friend  and  obedient  ser 
vant,  REVEUDV  JOHNSON. 
Hon.  JOHN  M.  CLAYTOX, 

United  States  Senate,  Washington, 


Stereotyped  and  printed  at  the  Globe  Office. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 
LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


SSrtrfrfSj 

,     \$&' 

r>r"r*T\  I   r 

KCLV-*  LJ  L.L 

9-  ,  . 

fk 

..... 

^ 

i  ^Anr'6?H0 

13npi  w 

EJEC  i  2  IS&3 

MOU    -i  2^4 

SS  STA 

-^r-^--  , 

CKS      *uv  <^°  OJ 

V1^  O          f    '^«^_ 

LD  21A-50m-9,'58 
(6889slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


